Judge Roberts...........

A couple of interesting quotes. First, a quote from Brandeis University Prof. Anita Hill writing for Newsday.

"We don't know much about Roberts' political ideology, but we do know that his career has been built on membership in increasingly elitist institutions that include few women and Latinos or other ethnic minorities... Had these 'extraordinary' credentials set the standard for judicial nominations in 1982, Sandra Day O'Connor would never have been appointed. She never clerked. She never worked for a president. She never served as a federal judge"

Probably without realizing it, Prof. Hill, in a backwards way, is saying Judge Roberts is more qualified now than O'Connor was at the time because of his "extraordinary credentials." Even if she was being a bit sarcastic, she adequately laid out Justice O' Connors lack of experience when compared to Judge Roberts.

The implication here is pretty clear. Justice O"Connor was able and qualified to serve even though she "never clerked", or lawyered for an administration, and "never served as a federal judge."

But, wait. Little Chuckie Schumer says,

"There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor. But his actual judicial record is limited to only two years on the D.C. Circuit Court. For the rest of his career, he has been arguing cases an as able lawyer for others, leaving many of his personal views unknown. For these reasons, it is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly and fully in the coming months. His views will affect a generation of Americans, and it his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views. The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy. ... I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is -- particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court -- will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions."

So, once again, the left wants it both ways. Apparently, no federal court experience is not a problem, but two years is too little.

Chuckie Schumer opines that "the burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy." If this is so, why then do the Dems go "digging for dirt"? Why do they demand papers that have legal protection because of separation of powers? They, after all, are looking for things "to prove that he is unworthy".

The only negatives to this point is that Roberts is white, male, Catholic, appointed by Bush, and not a liberal.

Also, shouldn't someone remind Sen. Schumer that the role of the courts is not to "make law"? Sen. Schumer also seems to be making the point that not all nominations should be subject to the same scrutiny. Some can get a pass and some will be grilled. It is because this nomination is a swing vote in his mind, and therefore deserves intense examination.

When Schumer was reminded of Ginsberg's refusal to answer questions on her views when she was up for nomination, and yet still breezed through the nomination process, Schumer replied, "It was a different time then."

Chuckie, you fool no one with this childish bafoonery. Well, except for the New Yorkers that keep sending you back to the Senate, that is.