"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
Judge John Roberts has just been confirmed as out 17th Chief Justice to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. In a vote that was more of a disparity than I thought it would be, Roberts was confirmed 78-22 by the Senate.
How could anyone vote against someone with such incredible credentials? Ask these 22 individuals why Judge John Roberts should not deserve to be confirmed:
One need not have a great deal of intellectual insight to see what these individuals have in common. These were the democrats who demanded ridiculous standards be thrust upon Roberts due to the fact that he was nominated by President Bush. There is nothing extreme about this man and what his career has undoubtedly shown. It should not even be a subject for discussion, speaking of his political beliefs, this should not even be discussed as apart of the role of a judge. However, let us not dwell on the transparent partisan rancor of this small minority of senators. Judge John Roberts shall make a fine addition to the court based upon his disntinguished legal mind and proven capabilities in leadership.
As we move forward, President Bush is expected to announce a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat. Many expect that Judge John Roberts easily made it through his confirmation due to the fact that the democrats wanted to hedge their political capital with the O'Connor seat and whomever the nominee will be. This would make perfect sense in light of the fact that her seat has been a 'swing' vote for quite some time. With these thoughts in mind, as I was parusing through the confirmation news circulating about John Roberts, this quote caught my eye:
On Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Bush a letter urging him not to name to the court any of the three judges who were part of the compromise - Judge William J. Pryor Jr. and Judges Owen and Brown. "The nomination of any of these individuals to the Supreme Court would represent an unnecessary provocation and would be met by substantial opposition in the Senate," the letter said.
How can this be construed as an "unnecessary provocation?" Was this not the entire point of the "Great Compromise of 2005?" As many pundits and commentators stated, this is further illustration of just how disengenuous the democrats are in this process.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. Over 100 blogs are already on board. If you want to join us, just register through our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info on how to get aboard and fight the ACLU.