Roberts

It appears likely that Judge Roberts will soon be confirmed by the Senate as our country's next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, only the seventeenth one in history. As the Senate confirmation hearings have amply demonstrated, Roberts clearly has the intelligence, wit and knowledge of constitutional law to lead the courts. However, I at least am troubled by what I heard when I listened to him answering questions from Senators, and I don't know how I would vote if I could do so.

There are several reasons why I might not vote to confirm this very qualified inidividual, including Bush's refusal to hand over key documents pertinent to the case, but it revolves largely around one main concern: I don't know who he is. Granted, I did not get a chance to listen to the entire confirmation hearings, but I did listen to several hours and some of the key highlights. Roberts did not give us a sense, at all, of how he views the role of government functioning within the confines of the constitution. Those views are in fact very pertinent, since that is exactly what he will be doing.

The rebuttal that he gave to such inquiries was that he did not want to pre-judge any case that could come before the court, and also he felt that disclosing his views would amount to "bargaining for votes". I don't see at all how this is the case. He lets everyone know what his views are, and people vote accordingly -- there is no bargaining involved. In fact, if there were to be bargaining assumed, then we have some level of corruption in the Senate. It disturbes me even more that nobody seems to care that disclosing his views would in fact start leading to bargaining for votes, thus accepting the implicit assumption of corruption. It's tragic.

He knows what will get him confirmed, and he's doing it. I don't know if he's a good man or not, but he's certainly smart. What I'm frustrated with is not him, or the Senate, but the lack of transparency and honesty in the entire process. It's why I could never go into politics.