John Roberts: Judicial Man of Mystery

"The biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," remarked President Dwight Eisenhower upon reflecting on his appointment of Earl Warren to the Supreme Court.

Prior to joining the court, Warren was a major figure in Republican politics during his governorship of California and as Tom Dewey's running mate during the infamous 1948 election when the Republican ticket seized defeat from the jaws of victory. Even Dewey, the poster-boy for the moderate-wing of the GOP, would refer to his vice-presidential candidate as a "dumb Swede."

Warren invited such disgust through his liberal posturing as Chief Justice of a court that would accelerate the power grab by the judiciary over almost every facet of American government and society.

Unfortunately, Warren would not be the lone "liberal Trojan Horse" appointed by a Republican president.

George H. W. Bush's own "greatest damn-fool mistake" was not raising taxes after his "read my lips" pledge but tapping an enigmatic New Hampshire jurist to the high bench. Before fiscal conservatives pelt my chicken-ware protective screen with bottles of Bollinger '79, keep this important fact in mind: taxes go up and down, but Supreme Court justices are for life. In their latest boo-boo, the Federal judiciary has gone from being infallible super-legislators to a group of Hedley Lamars, giving their blessing to government sanctioned land snatching for private use.

41 was not a true conservative, though there were times when he tried to play one on tv. Still, Poppy must have been hurling horseshoes at the walls when appointee David Souter ruled against his son in the Bush v. Gore case that was decided by a single justice, reportedly the eternally wavering Anthony Kennedy.

Not even the Great One himself, the still lamented Ronald Wilson Reagan, was not immune from goofing on court picks. After the Bork appointment was torpedoed and his backup went flat, Reagan offered Kennedy, who would be part of the majority in Kelo v. New London, and a host of other liberal decisions. As for the retiring Judge Sandy...well since relatively speaking she is the fourth most conservative member of the court, please stop laughing, I'll give her points for dreading the thought of Al Gore choosing her replacement, as Newsweek reported.
Then there is the most ignoble Cassius of them all, John P. Stevens, who is unquestionably the biggest accident of Gerald Ford's happenstance presidency. Though the media likes to chirp all three of his names, I wish to associate "John Paul" with a pope and not the enforcer of mandatory state atheism. And so, a Supreme Court that tends to go in a liberal direction most of the time consists of 7 Republican-appointed justices. And country club-types wonder why conservatives are so distrustful of their own party members.

With O'Connor's departure from the court, the fight is on for what has become, thanks to activist judges, the most important domestic decision a president can make. This wasn't always the case, when in the good old days of checks and balances, being sent to the Supreme Court was almost like being made Ambassador to Iceland.

The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, had abdicated his position to become governor of New York, but alas that was also when states were something more than regional welfare distribution centers.

President George W. Bush's decision to nominate John Roberts has made things interesting. An ideological blank slate, his very selection by Bush sent a hunched-over Chuck Schumer bobbing in front of the cameras declaring his intent to fight to protect the "law of the land" as it was invented by the Warren Court and their successors.

Though Roberts's educational background is impressive and his legal credentials impeccable, some Republicans are not falling into line, with the most prominent of doubters being leggy-conservative pundit Ann Coulter.

Personally, I have confidence in the president's choice on a few grounds, after all, it’s not like Christie Whitman is screening them. First, the president was almost on the losing end of his dad's Supreme blunder and not apt to repeat it. Second, Bush is aware of how court appointments shape a legacy. The younger Bush is an admirer of President Eisenhower, whose portrait occupies a prominent place in the West Wing. He has the advantage of knowing where all of his Republican predecessors erred.

Third, the greatest disservice W could do to his brother, who may or may not have White House aspirations at a later date, would be to leave a long-standing monument of poor judgment on the Supreme Court.

Finally, for those of us concerned about babies being torn apart by dentistry tools, Roberts's wife had been active in a pro-life women's organization. While the nominee himself has not left much of a reassuring paper-trail on this most important subject in the wake of his legal career, you can tell a lot about someone by his or her spouse.

If Roberts does turn out to be the latest edition of promising nominees-disappointing judges, conservatives can at least have the satisfaction that the newest member of the bench could end up sleeping on the living room couch.

Welcome to FreeSpeechAlley...a cyber tribute and continuance to the late debating corner that once existed around the shady oaks of Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge. In addition to my admittedly conservative commentary, from time to time I will run columns penned by guests with a more "contrary" (i.e., liberal) point of view. The editiorials run on this site will cover International and National political events in addition to stories of note in Louisiana and on occasion the Pelican State's yankee counterpart in political skullduggery, the great state of New Jersey. Let the discourse begin!