What Roberts did best -- or, at least, most -- was deflect questions on charged issues
This hearing is proving that he is one heck of a lawyer, something that almost everyone would agree on. What is still not on the record is where he stands on just about any position facing this nation.
Is Roberts truly a good choice for both the Supreme Court, and head of the US judiciary?
He has very limited experience on the bench. While highly intelligent, and gifted at answering questions, without saying much, does he possess a judicial temperament? The skills he has deployed so far are demanded of a lawyer, but unwanted in a judge. What were the qualifications Bush was seeking for these positions? Not experience, and clarity, for he presents neither. He is an ideologue and he is young, and that is why the president has selected a man with only 2 years experience on the bench for this position.
Overall poor reasons, and one that the senate should question.
However, based on the oversight that they offered to Bush's selection to head FEMA, I don't expect much done other than blind consent from the right.
2 comments:
everything else aside ... CHIEF justice?
how do you figure that?
e+
Looks like to me, the most challenging questioning should come leading Democrats. But what is passing for "challenges" are really Democratic "limelight-sharing" without making any enemies.The fact that Roberts gives such "non-answer" answers, is indicative of his real agenda. Kind of like taking the Fifth Amendment or an Alford plea. The nation will rue his appointment.
Post a Comment