This article from Law.com last February
D.C. Circuit Judge Gets on Supreme Court Short List on Law.com is an interesting perspective on Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts.
It's interesting to me that commentators on some networks just assume that if people don't agree with the administration's policies, or share party affiliations with the president, that they will automatically oppose a nominee that appears to put issues of law above partisan ones.
After the announcement the analysis began to figure out how Roberts would vote on the choice issue. Do we really need to re-debate Roe v. Wade right now? Logical thought suggests that it shouldn't matter what a judge's personal opinion might be on an issue. We should have justices who understand and value the law and upholding it rather than writing opinions based on principles of evidence and law rather than on preconceived biases, right?
The vehemence with which some commentators baited the Democrats just confirms my opinion that this nomination is one area where Bush has succeeded. Let's hope that those on the other side of the party divide see the wisdom in looking at the qualifications of the person who is nominated rather than the party affiliation of the one who nominated him.
