"The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth."
-'Publius' The Federalist No. 1
David Limbaugh's column this week discusses a subject that has been frequented lately. What is the proper role through which Judge Roberts' faith should or should not play on the bench. Most of the speculation seems to gravitate back to the behemoth that is Roe v. Wade.
But it is axiomatic that those who don't play by the rules are always suspicious that the other side won't either. Since liberals have routinely exploited the judiciary to implement their policy agenda they fear conservative-oriented judges might do the same. Actually, they're horrified at the prospect that conservative judges might simply reverse precedent established through liberal activism, such as Roe.
It is unfortunate that the sole criteria for this justice must be seen through this solitary issue. Without going through the discussion again, it has been noted that there are a plethora of issues that judges must wrestle with throughout their careers. The Democrats are becoming the party of the extreme, and the party of one issue. Does their entire base represent the abortion movement? It is interesting to watch this as it plays out. In upcoming weeks, I am sure the issue will be churned relentlessly, but it seems as though the vacancy on the court is not the controversy that everyone thought it would be.