Confirmation hearings
 

I was listening to the confirmation hearings on NPR on the way to the Dr.'s office. One of the senators was spending a lot more time talking up his own agenda than actually asking any questions.

On another topic, I give lots of credit to Roberts on one point. He was asked a question about something he was involved in during the Reagan administration. The guy answered clearly and concisely. I have trouble giving a coherent answer about code I developed last month.

Some of the Republicans basically take the time they are alloted to give speeches, since there isn't anything they really want to know about him.

Democrats and Specter spend their time asking questions they don't expect him to answer.

I am curious about one point. In 1967, the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia struck down laws against interracial marriages nationwide, including some written into states constitutions. Marriage has traditionally been the province of the states. Does Roberts believe the court did not have the right to rule in Loving?

The confirmation hearings, which I have listened to, have revealed precious little about what John Roberts believes. He has allowed that he believes strongly in the Rule of Law, and that as a judge, he would uphold the Constitution, as would be his duty. That neatly and tautologically dovetails with the only confession of personal belief, belief in the Rule of Law.

He is making a bravura demonstration of his poise, endurance, and his lawyerly skill at staying on topic. His topic is "I am loyal to the Rule of Law, I am a good lawyer, I am loyal to my client". All else I have gleaned from the proceedings has come from the commentators, and that is reading tea leaves, at best.

We do not know what this man is about, with the dominant exception being his love for the law and his skill at pursuing that love, which reveals nothing more. He's argued both sides of the same argument, for and against, at different times. Nothing wrong with that, one expects a good lawyer to be able to do so, and he is without question, a very good lawyer.

All his work as a lawyer has been illustrative only of the views of his clients, not his views. Even the tempest in a teapot about his ruling, as a judge, that a girl eating a french fry on the subway should be punished shows only his adherence to the rule of law.