7/20/05 -- Roberts

Been wrapped up in a police investigation (not for anything I did) so I've been too busy to post. But, quickly.

Roberts & Rove
Bush made a shrewd political move with his choice. I think he'll please most conservatives without generating enough public outcry to embarrass him. The white house needs a win right now, and unless Roberts does something or did something incredibly bad in the past, he'll probably be a shoe-in. Some of the more liberal Democrats are going to protest and I'm already getting interest-group emails telling me Roberts is evil, but unless Dems can delay for a year and a half and do it in such a way that they don't lose the midterm elections, he's probably what we can expect. I'm surprised Roberts wasn't crying like a baby with joy. If I was nominated to even the appeals court, I would have gone through ten or fifteen kleenix. David Brooks made an interesting comment on Newshour with Jim Lehrer yesterday that I agree with. While Bush was certainly looking for some political points, Brooks think that Bush chose his nominee based on his finding "a kindred spirit." I think that's true. One of Bush's best qualities is that he does have a lot of loyalty to his friends (sometimes more than is justified, Tenet, Rumsfield, etc.) but I think that, while politics never left his mind, the decision must have been profoundly personal. He talked with someone he thought he liked. I think he would have supported someone he liked even if the nominee would rip Washington apart with its teeth.

You've got to admire the Bush administration's method of handling this. A lot of people are saying Bush chose so quickly to save Karl Rove, but I don't think Bush would make a decision so important so quickly to save his top advisor and himself from more embarrassment, especially considering that I still think Rove is smart enough to avoid doing anything technically illegal. Still, Fitzgerald better find something. I hate to see journalists go to jail for what turns out to be a case that he can't prosecute. It's almost better, I think, that the media is distracted for awhile anyway. Everyone was probably on the verge of being burned out about hearing it. This way, if anything really important comes up after the hoopla has settled, it'll seem fresh and interesting. If nothing new comes up, Democrats can never mention it again except at rallies without losing face or political capital for looking somewhat petty. I also think that the Rove story probably wouldn't have occupied the media long even if Bush had waited to nominate Roberts. The London bombings, Condi's trip to Israel, the Patriot Act renewal, and the neverending death march in Iraq are a lot to contend with even in a 24-hour newscycle. Still, if Bush's Brain was right about Karl Rove being part of the leak, maybe I'm not giving the far left fringe of the media enough credit. The biggest effect on me personally will be the acceptance that not all of them are crackpots.

The really brilliant timing I'd say comes from the early nomination. Not only did Bush supporters throw out the wrong name, diverting interest groups so that their campaign was wrong-footed from the start, but also chosing a nighttime venue when congress was not in session. Also, the public will be so sick of talking about Roberts that by the time the actual congressional hearings come around, people won't pay as close attention as they might otherwise. I think everyone, in the end, will want the vote to come quickly so they can get on with their lives. Especially any Democrats eyeing a run in 2008. Trying to court the liberals for the primary and the money but the moderates for the election is going to be a little difficult., like Waltzing along a razor's edge.

The New Republic has some interesting theories on how Robert's nomination will effect Bush's base groups and his reasons for choosing someone less conservative than expected. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050718&s=lizza072005

Of course, no one can go as crazy as other bloggers when it comes to speaking. You can find an opinion or link to just about any topic having to do with Roberts at http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/

The same people have some excellent excerpts and summaries rulings Roberts has been involved in (as few as they are). http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/selected_opinio.html

Some of the more interesting cases include dismissing a case against former U.S. P.O.W.s from the gulf war against Iraq (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/035232a.pdf), the dissent against hearing an E.P.A. en banc because the endangered species act might violate the commerce clause (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=015373B) and one that has something to do with a girl arrested for eating French Fries on a subway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072001257.html). Ah, the American legal system.

Of course the print media has something to say.

The Washington Post is in favor: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902035.html

The New York Times demands close scrutiny: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/opinion/20wed1.html?hp&oref=login

Excerpts from other newspaper editorials: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000981711 I especially like the Boston Globe. "As for the inevitable whining from some Senate Democrats, well, there's that inconvenient fact that Bush did win the election."