The Blame Jane Game

The Boston Globe :

"As a young aide in the Reagan administration's Justice Department, John G. Roberts Jr., now a Supreme Court nominee, advised his conservative colleagues to cloak their views behind broadly acceptable terms such as ''judicial restraint," according to memos released yesterday.

"In 1981, for example, when the Justice Department was prepping Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O'Connor for the same Senate confirmation questioning that Roberts will soon face, Roberts counseled her to avoid giving direct answers on legal issues facing the court."

Chicago Tribune : "Roberts generally took strongly conservative positions, often with a pointed tone, although it is often difficult to tell if the views are his own or those of the powerful individuals for whom he was drafting speeches, articles and memos. But taken together, they suggest he was on his way to becoming."

American Prospect's Matthew Yglesias doesn't want the Democrats to give up on Roberts:

"As just about everyone seems to agree, John Roberts is a shrewd choice to serve as Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement on the Supreme Court. By all accounts, he's a smart man and a clever lawyer, and he has no record of nut-job rhetoric or obviously mistaken decisions. He is, in other words, a tough nominee to oppose.

"At the same time, it seems clear that he'll be a bad justice. This basic reality has been obscured in much commentary from liberal legal experts, who've focused on the evidence that things could be worse. And, indeed, they could. There seems to be a reasonable chance that Roberts will turn out to be one of the 'good' right-wing justices -- the kind who do bad things in smallish, incremental steps rather than huge, gaping leaps of badness. That's nice, but it's still bad, and Democrats should say so. Indeed, the party ought to recognize that being in the minority comes with a few advantages -- first and foremost among them a release from the obligation to think realistically."

I noted yesterday that the Time and Newsweek profiles of JR were incredibly laudatory, and Salon media guy Eric Boehlert is stunned:

"Fawning, glowing, congratulatory, adulatory, Sycophantic. Take your pick, the stories are so over the top they have to be read to be believed, with the only real question being should Fred Thompson--Roberts' WH-appointed handler--have received ghostwriting credit? I mean, how could Thompson possible top Newsweek 's almost comical portrait of Roberts as a too-good-to-be-true 'centrist' who's 'enormously self-confident' but 'not arrogant or showy.' An 'unpretentious' 'regular guy' with a 'wicket wit' who 'mows his own lawn.' (Newsweek conveniently omits the name of the high school John 'Regular Guy' Roberts attended; La Lumiere.) According to the weekly he's loyal to church, family, school and 'most importantly' (wait for it...) 'to the law.'

"The Time piece isn't quite so embarrassing, although editors there think nuggets that Roberts is ambidextrous on the racquet ball court and plays Candyland with his kids qualify as insight. The piece ends with the completely baseless speculation that liberals might come to love Roberts as a Supreme Court justice.

"There's nothing wrong with the press toasting a man's life accomplishments, and certainly Roberts has had many. But aren't Time and Newsweek supposed to be news magazine, helping to put events in context? Their Roberts profiles lacked any.

"For instance, combined, the two features run 6,390 words, with over two dozen people quoted. Here's how many quotes there are from people even politely questioning the Roberts nomination: 0."