I do not want to fall into the Administration's trap of getting so distracted by this judicial nomination that I don't pay attention to other injustices of the Administration, like the war in Iraq, the detainees, military tribunals, the potential abolition of habeas corpus in death cases, and Rove Gate, to name a few.
-- TalkLeft on Roberts Nomination (but see here)
John Roberts, who might be the first clerk to serve with his old boss (CJ Rehnquist), is no big surprise ... though media announcements suggested someone else was the choice. In fact, months ago, SCOTUSBlog predicted he would be the one, and Volokh Conspiracy noted that he had some opposition from the left, but was confirmed with few dissenting voices (16-3 in committee, by voice vote on the floor).
He's a Reagan/Bush conservative, served his time in those administrations (and private practice), and has the right connections (Federalist Society and National Legal Center For The Public Interest (take a look at their board). And, his work (just as an advocate! on the other hand, look at his fellow travelers and who is raving about his selection) is unsurprising, but not totally out of hand:
-- limiting environmental standing re government's decision to open the land to mining, citing recreational activities in which they had engaged and planned to engage in the future in that area (also surface mining)
-- prohibiting government funding of abortion choices at health clinics
-- federal law not reaching Operation Rescue attacks on clinics
-- limiting court desegregation efforts
-- supporting school prayer at public school graduations
-- Equal Access for religious clubs
-- anti-affirmative action
-- Lake Tahoe Case (on side of local authorities; environmental friendly)
-- Contract/Takings (broad views, but after Kelo, this won't be seen as too bad)
-- (as judge) broad (if defensible) support of executive discretion in detainee trials
Enough stuff to make liberal activists skin crawl, but enough as well to make him look at a reasonable conservative sort. At first blush, I don't think this is a great nuclear option candidate, especially since I think a few Democratic Senators will support the guy. After all, his lower court vote in committee was 16-3!
It does highlight something: elections are not just about feeling good about the candidate. We are talking about real issues here, issues a majority most probably doesn't agree with the guy in power. But, so what? He's there. And, thus we are basically stuck with at least two more conservative justices. Some more years before there is a chance for a true liberal/libertarian. Also, another lawyer/judge sort, not someone who had some real experience in the real world. You know, kinda like O'Connor.
Oh well. Anyway, a couple final notes. (1) Bush I's nomination for him to the lower bench was allowed to lapse, since he was deemed too conservative. (2) If he doesn't basically say the magic words about abortion, there might be a battle. But, I still think good money will tell ya he will be confirmed. I wonder who will be picked to replace his old boss!