Washington Post Says, Confirm Judge Roberts!

[visionary]

Confirm John Roberts

Sunday, September 18, 2005; B06

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

This is not to say we expect that as chief justice, Judge Roberts will always rule as we would like. Reading the tea leaves of any justice's future votes is a dicey business. But on a number of important issues, Judge Roberts seems likely to take positions that we will not support. His backing of presidential powers, and willingness to limit civil liberties, appear worrisomely large, while his deference to congressional authority relative to the states may be too small. He appears more suspicious of affirmative action than we think the court should be, and his view of certain civil rights protections has been narrow. Given his comments about precedent and the right to privacy, we do not believe a Chief Justice Roberts will be eager to overturn federal abortion rights. But we recognize that he might end up supporting that unfortunate step, as the late chief justice William H. Rehnquist did unsuccessfully. These are all risks, but they are risks the public incurred in reelecting President Bush.

Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy. Before his nomination, we suggested several criteria that Mr. Bush should adopt to garner broad bipartisan support: professional qualifications of the high-

est caliber, a modest conception of the judicial function, a strong belief in the stability of precedent, adherence to judicial philosophy, even where the results are not politically comfortable, and an appreciation that fidelity to the text of the Constitution need not mean cramped interpretations of language that was written for a changing society. Judge Roberts possesses the personal qualities we hoped

for and testified impressively as to his belief in the judicial values. While he almost certainly won't surprise America with generally liberal rulings, he appears almost as unlikely to will-

fully use the law to advance his conservative politics.

For this reason, broad opposition by Democrats to Judge Roberts would send the message that there is no conservative capable of winning their support. While every senator must vote his or her conscience on the nomination, the danger of such a message is considerable. In the short term, Mr. Bush could conclude there is nothing to be gained from considering the concerns of the opposition party in choosing his next nominee. In the longer term, Republicans might feel scant cause to back the next high-quality Democratic nominee, as they largely did with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

If presidents cannot predictably garner confirmation for nominees with unblemished careers in private practice and government service, they will gravitate instead to nominees of lower quality who might excite their bases. Mr. Bush deserves credit for making a nomination that, on the merits, warrants support from across the political spectrum. Having done their duty by asking Judge Roberts tough questions, Democrats should not respond by withholding that support.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091701133_pf.html

[Prosperity]

but dems a dern librul rag

[chomerics]

Damn liberal media :doh:

[spanishomelette]

I like the Post, but I'm starting to dislike the sports section. Nice to see the liberal media embracing Roberts

[BlueTalon]

I'm amazed! The anonymous op-ed supports the confirmation!

[flyingtiger1013]

The WP wants to confirm a Bush SC nominee? We are truly in the endtimes.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

[Kilmer17]

Whew, this will probably be the push he needed to get confirmed.

Sarcasm on.

[Destino]

Washington Post strikes again another liberal slanted hate piece directed at the Bush administration......

[Prosperity]

People just need to realize that everything other than Rush/Savage/Fox News is not the liberal media. Anyone that actually knows what they are talking about would know that the Washington Post is one of the most unbiased and generally accurate papers out there. It is the only one I read, other than the Richmond Times (which generally sucks).

[Kilmer17]

I wonder how many times in the past 100 years the Post has endorsed a GOP for any major office? IE, Senate, Congress, Pres, Gov.

Anyone want to bet? The over/under is 10.

[nelms]

oops, see below.

[nelms]

Anyone that actually knows what they are talking about would know that the Washington Post is one of the most unbiased and generally accurate papers out there.

:laugh: Good one.

[Destino]

I wonder how many times in the past 100 years the Post has endorsed a GOP for any major office? IE, Senate, Congress, Pres, Gov.

Anyone want to bet? The over/under is 10.

It's pretty sad that the conservative political strategy has made us now question every paper that does what papers have always done. Unlike dishonest cable news stations that claim fairness papers have always made it painfully obvious which way they lean in op-eds and via endorsing politicians. This however has not, until the GOP needed to silence it's critics, meant that the news sections were inaccurate politically motivated attacks.

Suddenly the Post can't be trusted even though anyone that reads it and other national papers can see very clearly that it's news is much more centered then say, the Washington Times and the LA Times. The Wall Street Journal is a well known right leaning paper. Yet it's news financial articles are very good. The bias doesn't leak over to everything, but that kind of logical thinking isn't allowed in the "media is bias" world of today.

It's much easier to simply write off anyone that dares point out a mistake as having their own agenda.

[Kilmer17]

I read the Post every day. But I have no illusions that it is an "unbiased" paper as Liberty has claimed.

IS it more centered than the LA times or Wash Times? Certainly. But it's a Liberal leaning paper.

[Prosperity]

I would question any paper that endorses GOP candidates half the time or close to it, unbiased doesn't mean giving equal results to both sides, it means judging every side equally then giving out fair judgements. The GOP has not done anything to warrent support from unbiased sides, because of the growing contradictions within the party, not to mention its growing extreme lunatic base of the religious right. By your definition papers that don't endorse communists are just as biased.

[nelms]

... not to mention its growing extreme lunatic base of the religious right.

I guess you mean people that go to church.

[Kilmer17]

If you actually believe that, I can see why you think the Post is unbiased.

[chomerics]

I guess you mean people that go to church.

No, he means lunitic religous leaders like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson.

[Destino]

I guess you mean people that go to church.

I guess he means the puritan redux that is currently growing and gaining control of the GOP. I don't know about the people you go to church with but the ones I do, aren't all interested on destroying the wall of seperation and inserting religion in public schools.

[nelms]

No, he means lunitic religous leaders like Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson.

If that's the case, it's a very small group. You won't find any true conversatives supporting nut cases like Robertson. At least not this one.

[twa]

If that's the case, it's a very small group. You won't find any true conversatives supporting nut cases like Robertson. At least not this one.

I am a religious conservative and Robertson is loony imo

[visionary]

Most religious conservatives, even the strict born agains that I know can't stand Robertson...and I don't think anyone takes that nutjob Phelps seriously.

[visionary]

Oh yeah though, before we get off topic too much or whine one way or another about the Liberal media...

Does ANYONE want to discuss the actual arguments made in the article itself?

;-)

about why Roberts should be confirmed (not that there is really any doubt that he will be, even if every Democrat votes against him (an unlikelyhood)

[Destino]

Put it like this, if I went before congress and said "I want the bible to be taught in schools and every day to start with a prayer session" would there be very very few GOP members that would agree with me, or not so few?

[Kilmer17]

Not really, it isnt anything new or groundbreaking. I find it odd that the Post comes out with this endorsement after realizing it was going to happen anyway.

I would have had more respect if they had done some research on their own (IE not just watched CSpan on the hearings) and made this endorsement a few weeks ago.