PressEthic

Battling for the nation’s attention with the murky waters that are slowly beginning to diminish from New Orleans, the confirmation hearing that will presumably lead to the appointment of a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court have truly been a calm within the chaos created by the hurricane. The process represents the United States government at its finest, its methods of judicial selection running like clockwork, as even the first day of opening statements went smoothly due to the absence of any partisan bickering.

In watching the coverage I am fascinated. Too young to have witnessed any of the remaining 8 justices hearings, the entire process and how it is dealt with in the media is fantastic. Transcripts from the actual proceedings are placed online at news websites, videos of John Roberts’ testimony can be played with the push of a button. Columns written with contributions from legal scholars flood the pages of the press, articulating all that viewers of these presidential proceedings should be looking for, legal terms that seem foreign, or their own views of the right kinds of questions to be asked. Other columns poke fun at the proceedings, for what is their not to like about Roberts?

The majority of his public appearances including his 6 minute opening remark to the Senate judiciary committee, paint him as the all american guy. He truly is the poster child for a perfect democracy, a type of government that many members of this nation often times seem no longer willing to uphold. In his statement Roberts preached his believe that justices should be servants of the law and that a certain amount of humility came with the job. He likened his own position to that of a baseball umpire, calling the balls and strikes, and making sure the game is played by the rules, but surmised a justices position out of the lime light saying that “no one goes to the ballgame to see the umpire.”

There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Roberts will be the next Supreme Court Justice. Yet while everyone in this country seems to be taking these proceedings lightly focusing instead on the body counts in Mississippi and Louisiana, I have to wonder if Judge Roberts seems as perfect as he is. It has been noted in several editorials around the country, namely an editorial featured in the St. Louis Dispatch on September 6, that the judge has left a paper trail from his years clerking for various federal judges and working in the administrations of Bush 41 and Ronald Reagan, a trail that Senator Edward Kennedy described on the second day of proceedings as a “narrow and cramped and perhaps even a mean-spirited view of the law." The evidence coming from these documents show a conservative judge, who probably still believed in his corny little baseball analogies but also sadly believed in the degradation of women’s rights, privacy rights, civil rights, and affirmative action.

When asked about this during the second day of questioning, Roberts' responses were safe and undiscriminating. Who in their right mind would blatantly testify that they were a sexist and a bigot if they were trying to nab a seat on the highest court in the world? Not John Roberts. In his response directed at the senators who asked him about several of his controversial law briefs, Roberts responded with the fact that his views represented in these memos were not reflective of his own, but the administrations. That seems a little fishy to me. Day Two of Roberts' testimony was all very fishy. The guy has no concrete answers for anything. True, he must protect his own skin, but don’t the American people deserve some answers?

While I care about Hurricane Katrina and am still angry and confused at the overall failed U.S. response to the disaster, I worry about the future. New Orleans will eventually dry out, the rebuilding will begin, and we will be left with the reality that natural disasters as well as terrorist disasters continually test our country’s bureaucratic resources. What I am worried about is the fate of this country in the hands of the new supreme court justice, a man that will be serving and deciding many of the laws of this country well into my own 60th year of life. Roberts seems like a jolly fellow now, but how jolly will he appear when he begins over-turning precedents like Roe vs. Wade? I hold my right to privacy and my right to choose very dear, and don’t feel that some private school educated, rich, white man from Indiana should be able to take that from me. Who will Bush appoint next to fill Justice O’Connor’s seat? We are losing a woman, and an important swing voter on the court, but will she replaced with another woman, or perhaps another one of Bush’s conservative country club pals? I have no doubts about the abilities of Judge Roberts, yet despite the transcripts, television appearances, and editorials I read about this guy I find it hard to get a clear sense of what kind of verdicts he truly will bring to the highest court, and thus find it difficult to welcome him so easily into the judiciary with open arms. A senator attempting a crossword puzzle while the proceedings are going on? Please. Because if this whole nomination ends in another horse show judge being placed in the upper echelons of government…..I’m moving to France.