Perhaps this is a time when I must come to terms with a previous lack of rigor in my analysis regarding the Supreme Court. Or perhaps I am just a sore loser.
The framers of the Constitution were hoping to create an august institution that could transcend politics to serve the greater good. The debate about any appointment to the Court must be about who is the best available person for the job, not his or her ideological bent.
Unfortunately, like all human institutions, our base character traits tend to show in matters involving the distribution of power. From John Jay forward, politics have been an intrinsic component of the appointment process. We have strayed far from the principle that the Court must be the podium for legal clarity and articulation and become overly concerned about 25 year-old memos hidden in long-forgotten files.
The Supreme Court was created to be the repository of the most capable, learned and articulate legal minds in the United States. I have long held that the most significant decision a President must make is the appointment of an individual to the Supreme Court; because it affects us for longer than any other functions of the office. I have often stated that I am willing to accept the appointment of conservative Justices like Scalia - with whom I vehemently disagree but respect because of his intellect and articulation - as long as the rigor of thought and clarity of opinion are amongst the best available at the time of appointment.
One reason I became a Democrat stems from Bush Sr.'s choice of Clarence Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall. This overtly patronizing decision to replace genius with cosmetics in an attempt to avoid controversy and to disguise extreme viewpoints disgusted me to the core. Thomas was not the best available and this appointment was, and continues to be, an insult to the institution and our nation.
Using this rationale, John Roberts is a worthy candidate. He is clearly brilliant, articulate and appears to be a genuinely decent man with whom any but the most partisan of us would be proud to consider a colleague, friend or neighbor. His legal pedigree is second to none and, unlike many on the right, is a self-made man. Whether I agree with his politics - according to my long-held belief - ought to be irrelevant because of his qualifications.
However, this President - horrifically - has the rare privilege of simultaneously appointing both a Chief and Associate Justice and thereby launching the court to the hard right for the statistical remainder of my lifetime. As a result, I am now wondering whether my previous ability to accept appointments of overtly conservative judicial candidates was less comprehensive in consideration than it should have been.
Like many of us in the left center, I have been offended by the increasing involvement of government in our personal lives. I am distressed by the erosion of the social safeguards we built into our national infrastructure during the 20th Century. I abhor the rise of religious arrogance and simultaneous increase of intolerance and ignorance. I believe the current administration is the vanguard of this social decay. I sincerely believe this President will only appoint Justices who will serve to further this destruction of my United States and therefore I must re-consider my previous complicity with qualified, but politically unacceptable, appointments.
Sadly, this makes me wonder:
A) Is there any possibility that a BETTER candidate than John Roberts will be appointed by the current White House?
B) Is this really an acceptable standard for me to adopt with regard to the Court? (After all, Warren was an Eisenhower appointment.)
C) If we oppose a solid candidate like Roberts, to replace Rehnquist, will we get another "Thomas" to replace him?
D) Is it good for us to effectively narrow the confirmation process to an appointee's position on abortion - even though it is perhaps the most important topic of many to consider?
I do not know exactly what I believe about these questions, but I do know that I can not reflexively oppose an outstanding legal mind because of his or her politics - as uncomfortable as that position may be. After all, maybe I just am busy hating the fact that this President has two choices when I was hoping he would have none. Perhaps I'm just looking for a reason to oppose anything else this administration does to ruin our country - which possibly could have the reverse affect in the long run.