John Roberts...

Who knows? That seems to be the prevailing thought on President Bush's nominee to replace retiring judge Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. This pick seems to have been driven by the President needing a quick confirmation. Mr. Roberts has only two years experience on the federal bench, which of course means he has very few cases in which Democrats can point to and say "See, look at this, he's a right wing nut job." This was a wise pick by President Bush for this very reason. Not many major case decisions virtually ensures his confirmation to the highest court in the land. That's what it's come to now though. The climate in Washington is so partisan that Mr. Bush can't even nominate a qualified candidate (not that Mr. Roberts is unqualified by any means, he is by all accounts more than capable,) that may have more experience for fear of a long drawn out confirmation hearing (In all fairness though, Mr. Bush is the number one reason things in Washington are as partisan as they are). From what I've read, there were many more experienced choices for the President to choose, but he chose Judge Roberts due to his limited case history.

It's interesting that within hours after Bush picked Roberts as his choice, I was indudated with e-mails telling me how horrible this pick was for the country. MoveOn.ORG and others tell me Mr. Roberts is a (gasp) conservative. Really? I assumed Bush was going to nominate Dr. Howard Dean. Give me a break people. Like it or not, when Bush won the election we all knew that he was going to be nominating at least one, maybe two, justices. Before we all go forward and act like we know what we're talking about and flame Mr. Roberts, let's let some facts on his judicial record come forward. Also, let's not forget that while Bill Clinton was President his nominees were both approved, (both liberals, Ginsberg and Breyer) and they were granted a fair and respectful hearing.