[Mb-civic] The Case For a 'No' Vote on Roberts - E. J. Dionne - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

The Case For a 'No' Vote on Roberts

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Saturday, September 17, 2005; Page A21

"Where are you?"

That was the question Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) almost plaintively 
posed to Judge John Roberts as the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings 
neared their conclusion. It is the right question.

Durbin wanted to know where Roberts's deepest commitments, his "core 
values," lay. Were there some causes to which Roberts would simply not 
offer his "legal skills" -- amply demonstrated in his life, and again 
this week -- as a matter of principle?

Roberts suggested there really were no such limits, or, at least, he 
wouldn't tell us what they were. "I've been on both sides of this 
affirmative action issue," he said cheerfully. Yes, but you can't be on 
both sides as chief justice. He fought the idea that his view of the 
lawyer's role "sounds like you're a hired gun," but that is exactly how 
it sounds. A chief justice is hired on behalf of all of us.

In his testimony, Roberts was brilliant, affable, engaging and amusing. 
He was also evasive, calculating and, well, slick.

"Would you say there's a general right to privacy?" Sen. Charles Schumer 
(D-N.Y.) asked Roberts. "I don't know what 'general' means," Roberts 
replied. Fair enough, though I wish Schumer had also asked Roberts what 
the meaning of "is" is.

How senators vote on Roberts -- and in particular how Democrats and 
moderate Republicans vote -- depends on where they believe the burden of 
proof lies. The accepted Washington view is that deference should be 
paid to a manifestly qualified presidential nominee.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that some of Roberts's potential 
opponents seemed to be saying that "the only way you can have a good 
heart is adopt my value system." That, Graham insisted, does "a great 
disservice to the judiciary."

But the doubts about Roberts have nothing to do with his good heart. The 
issue is the power about to be put in his hands and into the hands of 
President Bush's next appointee -- power both will enjoy for life. The 
Senate and the public have a right to far more assurance about how 
Roberts would use that power than they have been given in these 
hearings. The Senate is under no obligation to give the president or 
Roberts the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/16/AR2005091602169.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050917/692bd988/attachment.htm