A very fine choice, it would seem

Like most of you I've had the day to read the reaction to the Roberts nomination. Those who are in a position to access his competence legally seem to like the selection. He gets very high marks for brilliance and legal knowledge, even from those who are inclined to oppose a conservative. Those who are opposing him, I've had emails from Planned Parenthood and EMILY's list, were going to oppose the nominee no matter who it was, assuming that Bush would nominate someone from the right side of the political spectrum. Ever there they seem to have trouble coming up with solid issues, so he looks to me like a winner.

What I like best in the comments I've read concerns his commitment to the law. William Beldar, a Texas lawyer recovering from a small heart attack, has had plenty of time to read about and write about this nominee. He responds to concern that Roberts is not sufficiently academic (a point in his favor in my eyes) or that he is some sort of stealth moderate (we are so easy to disguise.) both posts are worth reading. The post I wanted to call out for you looks at how Roberts will address cases where there is a moral (or perhaps a political) element towards which the justices have a personal reaction.

[B]y far the single most important quality that the new Justice must have, if Dubya is to keep his campaign promises, is the willingness to write words like these: ... I am not empowered to fix this. That's the essence of what Justice Thomas said [in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas], and it's exactly what the new Justice has to be willing to say — even when, and most especially when, the temptation to reach out and fix things is nearly overwhelming.

I'm on board with Beldar here. When I served on a jury we were faced wit a defendant who even the defense admitted was not a sympathetic character. The judge instructed the jury quite clearly that we were to put our personal feelings aside and focus our minds on the law (as it was explained to us.) Seems like good advise for Supreme Court justices as well. We need a Supreme Court, as I understand the constitution, to counterbalance those forces with a power that is mindful not of society or individuals, but of the law and constitution. Beldar quotes a Roberts opinion that demonstrates that he understands the role.

Too often in recent decades the Supreme Court has been willing to address societal and cultural issues the Congress is too timid to take on. In the long run this is a destructive impulse, like a parent who "helps" Johnnie with his homework by doing the hard problems for him. Johnnie gets a good grade but ultimately suffers for not tackling the work himself. The Court can make new policy fast with out the ugly debate and discussion that occurs across the square at the Capitol. Its a "cheat", however, and ultimately a disservice.

One way to deal with "too much liberal politics in the judiciary" is to push more conservative politics into the judiciary. There is a third option, however, that will ultimately prove the stronger approach, "less politics in the judiciary." I'll make a bold, and admittedly ill-informed prediction, just a gut feeling really. If Roe v. Wade is ever to be overturned, it will not be out of concern for the unborn or because it is bad social policy, it will be over concern for the constitution and a realization that it is bad law. anti-abortion advocates seem to confuse fighting Roe with fighting abortion, but they are two (or more separate fights.) The genuine battle over abortion rights occurs after Roe is overturned, and it will be ugly and protracted, but it will be the real debate we've been dancing around for decades while we debate constitutional issues.