WaPo, NYT Split Over Roberts

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times run editorials today on the question of whether John Roberts should be confirmed to be Chief Justice of the United States. You all know where I stand on this question already, so it won't be a surprise which of the two editorials I agree with generally.

The Post piece, "Confirm John Roberts," says the nominee "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."

The key portion of the Post editorial is a paragraph recognizing that Roberts may end up taking positions with which the paper disagrees. They list several areas of concern (which I share) and then note "[t]hese are all risks, but they are risks the public incurred in reelecting President Bush." While I don't buy the "president should get his man" argument (witness my strenuous opposition to the Bolton nomination), I think the Post is right in making this statement. The American people knew last November that a Court vacancy (or more than one) was likely ... and more voted for President Bush, wittingly or unwittingly giving him the authority to make those appointments.

As the Post continues in the editorial, Judge Roberts seems to fill the bill for the "just right" type of nominee: "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."

Democratic senators are getting heavy pressure from liberal interest groups and the far-left activist base to oppose Judge Roberts. Like the Post, I think this would send a very unfortunate message, and would probably mean a much more ideological nominee for the second seat as well as continued sparring over the judiciary far into the future (raising the dreaded specter of the nuclear option once more). I agree with the Post's concluding lines: "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."

Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, the editorial board writes in "Too Much of Mystery" that Roberts remains "an enigma" after the hearings, and that he "withheld" information from the Senate covering his stances on a whole laundry list of issues. Personally, I'm glad Roberts didn't lay out some kind of "judicial platform" during his confirmation hearings; if he had, I'd probably be opposing his confirmation.

As the Post writes, a Chief Justice Roberts may make decisions that I disagree with; heck he may even turn out to disappoint me very much by morphing into a Scalia/Thomas justice on the bench. But I saw no deception in his testimony (and I watched much of it). I believe that Judge Roberts will, like Justice O'Connor has and Justices Souter, Breyer and Kennedy often do, consider the real-world effects of the decisions he makes - on the judiciary, the other branches, and the American people. I believe he will be a pragmatic arbiter of the law, not an ideologue reaching for any straw with which to build a case for his predetermined position.

The Times suggests that senators should oppose the Roberts nomination because he didn't prove himself as having "qualities to be an excellent chief justice." I'm not sure what they mean by that, but obviously they weren't watching the same hearings I watched. John Roberts did indeed prove himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he does deserve a strong, bipartisan vote in his favor. The harder call will of course be the next justice - and on that, we still just have to "wait and see."