Another View of Roberts

Having written "I'd rather have a Supreme Court Justice of sound temperament with whom I disagree, than one who might be more likely to make a ruling or two that I'd be happier with, but who has shown clear unsound judgment in matters of law" in commenting on John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court, doesn't mean I won't also look at other views on the matter. Paul Loeb's article points out:

Challenging [Roberts] draws a line and invites our fellow citizens to stand up in other ways to this immensely destructive presidency.

How has a seemingly nice man like Roberts supported a politics of contempt for the voice of anyone but the wealthy and powerful? In a time when the Bush administration acts as if granted the divine right of kings, it’s troubling that Roberts defended Cheney’s right to refuse to name the corporate participants in his secret energy policy meeting. He advised Jeb Bush on the 2000 election, and denied being a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, then turned up on the Society’s Washington steering committee. He’s argued that the Voting Rights Act can only be violated by intentional discrimination, saying laws that incidentally discriminate are ok. Most damning, Roberts just ruled that if this administration wishes to exempt someone from the Geneva Convention and international law, they have the absolute right to do so. The belief that a president can do whatever he chooses links this nomination, the Downing Street Memo and Plamegate in a common matrix of unaccountable power.

Roberts is also disturbingly loyal to dubious corporate interests, or at least to principles that allow these interests to run roughshod over ordinary citizens and communities. He argued that private individuals could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations like the removal of mountaintops by West Virginia mining companies. He supported the rights of developers to ignore the Endangered Species Act. He denied the rights of workers injured over time as part of their jobs, supported criminal contempt fines to force the end of a strike, and helped a major car manufacturer avoid a recall of dangerous seatbelts.

I still hold to the premise that a Democratic filibuster of Roberts would be bad politics. In spite of the foregoing, we could do a lot worse, and Roberts willingness to assist a gay rights group with pro bono work shows at least that he is not the inflexible ideologue that Clarence Thomas is. Democrats, indeed all Senators, on the Judiciary Committee, and if (when) passed to the full Senate should ask the tough questions. After reasonable discussion however, I simply don't see, given what we know so far, a reasonable argument against voting for cloture (filibustering), at least among the signatories to the compromise. That doesn't mean that any Senator uncomfortable with this choice should not feel free to vote no when the final vote comes up. I also stand by my belief that advocacy groups should save their money for future fights. There will be plenty of those.