Who's Next?

My main concern right now is who comes after Roberts.

I tend to think that it is not reasonable for Democrats to expect the President to nominate anyone other than a conservative Republican -- at this time.

If the man is highly-qualified, hasn't been tainted by advocating torture or otherwise raised questions of moral fitness, and is not seen as a radical or extremist who would roll back the Constitution to 1929 or beyond, then I would be prepared to deal with the President.

We have to resist radicalism, but why shouldn't he be able to pick someone like Roberts?

The Democrats should question the man on his judicial philosophy to ensure he is not a radical who wants to overturn the New Deal and all the social legislative advances of the past 60 years, but I frankly don't care if he thinks Roe v Wade was bad law.

If he passes this sniff test, we should try to make a deal with Bush that his next nominee will be a bi-partisan candidate -- someone both sides would endorse.

If he agrees, we move to a vote on Roberts. If not, we might as well draw the line now -- because the issue is no longer Roberts but a "stuffed" Court. And that's an issue the American people will understand and a fight they will support.

UPDATE: Upon further research, I am impressed at this choice. Apparently, Bush realizes he does not need to reach for controversial or radical jurists -- that he will be able to transform the court into a bastion of conservatism without finding another Thomas or Scalia. Elections have consequences -- and I fully expect that the next two or three Supreme Court appointments will go to conservatives. I'll wait and hear what he has to say to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but my sense right now is that Roberts is as good an appointment as Bush has made to any position since the flawed election of 2000.

-- Neil

| +Save/Share | |