AnalPhilosopher

“[I]t is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little,
and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge.” —John Locke, 1689

“[P]hilosophy can no more show a man what he should attach importance to
than geometry can show a man where he should stand.” —Peter Winch, 1968

We Have a Nominee

My former student Mindy Hutchison just informed me by e-mail that President Bush nominated federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I confirmed it by going to the website of The New York Times. Roberts is only 50 years old. If confirmed, he could serve on the Court for 30 years.

Addendum: Here is a profile. Roberts is a graduate of Harvard Law School (in my opinion the best law school in the United States) and was a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Addendum 2: Get ready for a barrage of criticisms of Roberts—not because he's unfit for the position, because he's not, but because liberal groups need a reason to solicit money. I fear it is going to get very ugly in the next few days and weeks.

Addendum 3: The Wikipedia entry on Roberts has already been updated. My, that was quick! I found a link to this on Wikipedia. Please get your information about Roberts from reliable, fair-minded sources. Do not be manipulated by either those who support Roberts or those who oppose him. Look at what he has done, including what he has said. Keep the context of his actions and utterances in mind. Do not assume that arguments he made in a particular role are his own. Lawyers are expected to make the best case they can for a particular proposition, whether they agree with it or not. Even Judge Roberts's rulings as an appellate judge don't necessarily reflect his own views, since he is bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court.

Addendum 4: I've been watching some of the television coverage of the Roberts nomination, including President Bush's announcement. By any reasonable standard, John Roberts is eminently qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I can't imagine anyone with better credentials, although there are others, such as Robert Bork, who have credentials just as good. And yet, Roberts will be opposed by every left-wing organization. Those who oppose him are going to look downright silly. Let me compile a list of opponents:

People for the American Way
NARAL Pro-Choice America
Alliance for Justice
Planned Parenthood
American Civil Liberties Union
Democratic Underground
The Democratic Party
National Organization for Women

Feel free to add links of your own in the comments section.

Addendum 5: Michelle Malkin is covering the Roberts nomination. See here.

Bill (mail) (www):
I have been predicting for the last month or so that the Senate will make asses of themselves. I am glad that President Bush has made an appointment. I do not remember Judge Roberts being on the supposed short list of nominees. I will probably get too mad over the left/liberal attempts to derail this to enjoy the spectacle. I think the only hope for anything is for the Republicans to get a set of brass ones and change the rules to disallow the filibuster for judicial nominees. Filibuster doesn't mean what it once did anyway.
7.19.2005 8:40pm
Chris Pugh (mail):
Senator Chuck Schumer voted against Judge Roberts confirmation to the Appeals court a few years ago in part on the basis that Judge Roberts did not provide answers to some of his questions. The questions have become to be known as the "Schumer Questions". They can be found here. Does anybody want to tackle these questions or at least put them in laymen's terms?
7.20.2005 12:58am
Account:
Password:
Remember info?