Reaction to the Roberts Nomination
The blogosphere is a little slow on the draw, given that Roberts is a shocking nomination. Here are some responses:
Bravo: It's all over the news that the President is nominating John G. Roberts to replace Justice O'Connor. He's an inspired choice. Robert is probably the best Supreme Court litigator of his generation, and is considered a total star within the DC legal community (on both sides of the aisle). Bravo.
Setting aside ideology — and he has a sterling conservative reputation despite the relative lack of a paper trail — he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be.
I'd be pleased to see more diversity -- in the fullest sense of the term* -- on the Supreme Court. But assigned seating belongs in classrooms, not on the Court. Good job, President Bush.
But nonetheless, hidden in that [John Roberts' student comment] is one of the holy grails of the Exile philosophy– the heightened scrutiny using the contract clause that Lochner itself proclaimed.
Why do the Democrats do such stupid things sometimes? Did Leahy and Schumer really need to have an immediate response to the nomination? And such an unnecessary and disorganized one? It makes us look bad.
Scott from L-Cubed:
I may not like him, but he's qualified.
Amy Howe is also collecting reactions, and she has several links here.