Analysis

UW Law Professor Althouse (althouse.blogspot.com) writes today:
"The point should be that a judge who would rule from religious belief is not a proper judge. It's not a matter of whether we would like the outcomes or not. It's a matter of the illegitimacy of accepting the role of judge and then operating from religious tenets rather than the law. In fact, I would think a genuinely religious person would perceive it as a sin to assume power in such a fraudulent way."
...
"Maybe Bush didn't promise much of anything. Even so, he owes us excellence. He met the standard with Roberts, and then he stumbled miserably."
------
I really think it might be too early to conclude anything about Justice Roberts before he has reached a SCOTUS decision. Can you hold your praise until maybe 5 or 10 years down the line. Will people re-evaluate their position, if and when Justice Roberts authors some important decisions? You may not be so keen on his nomination depending on his actions. I suspect that is why a number of Democratic senators voted against his confirmation. Despite his presentation at his hearings, his pro bono support in the gay case (Romer?), and his vague indications on Griswold and privacy, they may have an instinctual feel for him, his background, and what is coming in the pipeline. In the future, it may be necessary to point out, "I didn't vote for him. I wasn't fooled by the rhetoric. I questioned, got no good answers, and acted on my intuition or internal reasoning based on my years of experience." For some, I suspect it's going to be less a matter of using the vote as political leverage; more a matter of personal principle, knowing what is coming, of going down with the ship. Some people are still ethical like that, damned the personal consequences, taking action when you sense something is just not right. Even if it means... going down with the ship. I suspect some of those voting against Justice Roberts, depending on in how many years they die, will be proud to have that fact listed in their obituary.

Of course, if you respect the credentials, no matter the reasoning, you will conclude the logic is sound. With a Jesuit (I believe) education, I am certain he will be able to sell his opinions to the majority that matters, despite the outcomes. Lawyers are good like that. But we shouldn't be results oriented, they say. Sure, I agree. But we are. You will not, don't waste your time trying, convince me that, for example, Scalia's background does not factor in any way into his decisions. I'm sorry but I do not think his inconsistencies and language can be explained away by theoretical posturing or logical subtleties. There's something more there, and if you understand that culture, you would not so easily conclude that he and Justice Roberts are viewpoint neutral. (sound anti-Catholic? I dunno. I was brought up in that faith, not a convert like some -- nothing wrong with that -- but I have instinctual reasons to doubt.)

I hope and pray even that I am wrong about the future decisions of Justice Roberts. If I am, I will revisit. I can admit making a mistake and I will be pleasantly surprised if there is no baggage encumbering his decisions. But really, many conservatives do not revisit their important decisions and assumptions, when the facts contradict. (see Middle East intervention and occupation). This has not been cost effective, and taking out Hussein and his funding for suicide bombers, overall will not prove beneficial to the region as a whole. It has satisfied some personal objectives, sure, but is not a success if you are evaluating from a neutral viewpoint of whether our specific intervention will prove overall beneficial to America (or Iraq, the region, or the international community.) We are not helping to create a lasting peace, (I still strongly believe an external source can not impose "democracy" at gunpoint) but are counting down to a nuclear option -- there or here. Again, I hope and pray I am wrong. (sound anti-Israel? I dunno. I think we'll eventually be able to have an open dialogue about the proper roles and relationships between the two countries without having to clam up because people are going to point the bigot finger. Probably this discussion will start, if it hasn't already, as: 1) we begin to contemplate our presence in the Middle East, 2) our economy begins to slip internationally and there simply is less to spend, and 3) the religious right and other conservative voices in the party slowly part paths, as they appear to be doing regarding this particular nomination. Did either "side" ever really trust the other and not see this split someday coming down the pipe? I wonder.)

As to the question of why Democrats are not fighting the current nomination... they tried. Everyone who wanted to participated a little less than a year ago, analyzed and evaluated the president's performance at an effective pre-election time, and one side lost. Those of you who supported this president, please, please, take responsibility for your actions and learn to fight your own battles. Particularly battles that your own actions are responsible for. Please. You can't always expect somebody else to pay in money or blood for the consequences of your actions. Shit, that would make all these decisions easy to opine on, if you didn't have any stake in how things really turn out down the line. For example, criticize Cindy Sheehan all you like, but she is no free rider. I think it would be refreshing, and show unity to really believe -- that like it or not, we are all in this mess together. Shared sacrifices and all. My 2 cents. (Sorry it's not funnier; I know it's a lot easier to present ideas within humor, but that's not my nature. I like to be funny about funny things, and more serious about things with serious consequences. I suppose that's why I prefer to read, and not watch much current tv comedy. That's not really my culture, as the books maybe are.)