·
I am a liberal, and I know I will deplore a good number of the Supreme Court opinions John G. Roberts Jr. authors. But I think he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed nonetheless.
Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public reelected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and "legislating from the bench" -- even if that negative characteristic actually applies equally to conservative and liberal judges. The public will -- and should have to -- live with the choice that Mr. Bush has made.
Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting these lifetime appointees. In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond those standards. The fact that Roberts is crafted "in the mold of [Justices] Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas" is our own fault.
JOSH GOLDBERG
Chicago
·
"The President's Choice" [editorial, July 20] justly outlines the career of John G. Roberts Jr. as a hugely successful corporate lawyer and governmental advocate for corporate freedom from regulation, only to draw the astonishing conclusion that "Judge Roberts's law practice was not ideologically driven."
The Post's failure to recognize that a life dedicated to extending and defending the freedom to accumulate wealth over all other social values is "ideologically driven" is a fit reminder that an ideology may be understood precisely as a set of ideas and assumptions that have become so transparent as to be mistaken for the state of nature.
