Replies

I suspected that the Roberts slight would draw particular notice, and I disagree with that point as well. Roberts was in fact an inspired choice, and is eminently qualified for the position in my view. Now, whether he is the ideological rock that one might wish him to be is another matter altogether. I think it's the latter that induces the comment, because as I've said from the beginning, Roberts is in fact a tabula rasa on far too many issues. A very brilliant tabula rasa, but a tabula rasa nonetheless.

You can bet your last chips in a game of Texas hold-em that neither John nor Harriet are a tabula rasa to George W. Bush. I'm sure at this point he's very skilled at interviewing people and going straight to the key issues he's concerned about.

Using the term tabula rasa is a bit hyperbolic. Roberts has been a foot soldier from day one. But being a great justice is not co-extensive with carrying out the "conservative" agenda on the court, some of which I disagree with. I like a sweeping commerce clause, and strong federal power for example, and don't think the establishment clause should be gutted down to a mere probibition of establishing Episcopaleanism as the national church. What one "conservative" wants, is not what another wants, or thinks is a reasoned and intelligent view of Constitutional jurisprudence or respect or lack thereof for precedent. In fact, I don't want a reckless disregard for precedent ala Thomas. Overturning precedent should require rather compelling reasons.

I've said from the beginning, Roberts is in fact a tabula rasa on far too many issues. A very brilliant tabula rasa, but a tabula rasa nonetheless.

He really isn't, his history is one of consistent conservatism and unwavering commitment to the improvement of the Judiciary in this country.
The fact that he has done so quietly does not mean that he is a blank slate.

He was brilliant in law school and even started Harvard College as a sophomore.
When he graduated he was recruited by big time law firms with offers of huge salaries. He choose a meager salary and a clerkship with Judge Friendly. The following year he landed a coveted Clerkship with Justice Rehnquist.

After that did he go chase a fortune by chasing ambulances? No, he became a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution. Whenever there was a Republican administration, he worked in it. When there was a Democratic Administration, he was in private practice. He is a memeber of the Supreme Court Historical Society and gives speeches about the court on a regular basis.

If you look at his resume not as a list of what he DID do but rather what he DID NOT, you see the measure of the man.