« So many polls | Main | ARM's length »
July 19, 2005
Bogus Argument
One of the most bogus arguments Republicans and the media that loves to eat up those arguments and regurgitate them is making is that "you can't judge a Supreme Court nominee based on how he was arguing cases for his clients when he worked for them." Basically, with John Roberts being nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans and the media are quick to say that (for example) you can't tell what his position is on Roe v Wade because he's never personally spoken on the issue, even though when he worked for the Reagan and Bush (I) White Houses he filed briefs in support of overturning those decisions.
Consider an attorney working for General Motors who argues against implementation of a government regulation requiring higher fuel standards. Would that person be against higher fuel standards? Not necessarily. You could certainly make the argument that if they really cared about higher fuel standards they'd be wrong to work for GM arguing against them, but that may not be a particularly high priority for the person and anyway maybe they are in favor of higher fuel standards but the particular government regulation does more to penalize GM than actually spur said standards.
Similarly, a defense lawyer who represents a client who has been accused of murder or a corporation that has been accused of cooking the books doesn't believe that murder is ok or defrauding your shareholders is something big business should get away with. You can work at Pizza Hut and still prefer Domino's personally. There's nothing wrong with any of that.
However, and this is a big difference, when people get into politics -- whether they are entering information into a database, making television ads or even working in the law department of a political administration, they have sought out that position not merely to practice their trade but to practice their trade in the service of an ideology. And so, if John Roberts at some level didn't want to overturn Roe v Wade, he probably wouldn't have been working in an administration determined to do just that, helping to write the briefs and arguing that position in front of the federal courts.
Ask yourself this: If a Democratic President nominated a former solicitor in a Democratic administration who had filed briefs in favor of Planned Parenthood and argued against overturning Roe v Wade (while working for a Democratic President) does anyone, including pundits so eager to parrot the Republican party line believe that it would be indeterminable where the nominee stood on such an issue? I think not.
Posted by Chris at July 19, 2005 09:57 PM
Comments
Hm, I think the best way for our party to get the Justices they want would be to win elections.
Posted by: drzachary ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.chrisishardcore.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at July 20, 2005 09:21 AM
I wasn't saying Bush shouldn't be able to nominate who he wants, I was just commenting on the fact that every time someone pointed out that this guy is probably against Roe v Wade, based on the fact that he wrote all these briefs and argued against that decision when he worked for the Reagan and Bush white houses, CNN anchors would be like "WHOA STOP HOLD ON he was just working for a client and representing their position" which is total horseshit when that client is the President.
My personal belief is that it is in the Republicans' and nation's best interest to nominate more of a moderate (especially on economic issues) and while the Democrats don't have a choice as to who that nominee is they certainly have the right to block one they completely disagree with.
Posted by: chris at July 20, 2005 09:57 AM
I don't think Roberts will get Borked. As with every other Justice, the only way to know what they will be like is to wait for them to start writing opinions.
Posted by: MEM at July 21, 2005 10:58 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)