| Page 4 of 5 < > |
Supreme Timing
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
"At once, the president gains some much-needed short-term political yardage with conservatives along with a chance to leave a legacy-defining stamp on the court. Roberts' moderate bearing belies his conservative legal career in important respects that Democrats no doubt will seize upon."
That's interesting -- is there such a thing as moderate bearing, and how does it differ from conservative bearing? No Bork-like beard?
Philadelphia Inquirer : "President Bush has made a politically shrewd choice for U.S. Supreme Court.
"In the polarized hothouse of Washington, he faced a daunting challenge as he pondered a momentous decision that could help shape his legacy. He had to tap somebody with sufficiently right-leaning credentials who would please his conservative followers; at the same time, he had to find somebody of high intellectual caliber who wins respect on both sides of the aisle, thereby making it difficult for the liberal opposition to demonize with impunity. John Roberts may well fill the bill."
There's the media take in a nutshell.
The Washington Times has the GOP viewpoint: "With Senate Democrats offering at least tepid praise last night, Republicans say federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. should be easily confirmed to the Supreme Court."
Here's a case you'll be hearing more about, from Slate's Emily Bazelon :
"Roberts may indeed turn out to be a wise, thoughtful, and appealing justice. When Bush announced his nomination, Roberts talked about feeling humbled, which won him points on TV. But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections."
Don't forget that all media politics is local. Here's the New York Post lead: "President Bush last night chose Judge John Roberts Jr. -- a rock-solid conservative with upstate New York roots -- to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a confirmation showdown with Senate Democrats." Roberts was born in Buffalo, but didn't live there long.
And here's the headline on the Chicago Trib bio: "Hoosier roots, a 'solid Midwest guy.' " Roberts grew up in Long Beach, Ind.
The libs, meanwhile, are still upset about Rove. American Prospect's Michael Tomasky notes an LAT piece quoting sources as saying Rove was intent on discrediting Joe Wilson because, he "reportedly" said, "He's a Democrat."
"I do not understand why some things get this town upset while others don't, but those three words should make any honorable patriot of either party both furious and ashamed.


