|
I read your posts with interest and usually a good deal of sympathy, but I think this time thou dost protest too much.
It would be a pretty obscure group of political ethicists that would actively defend Gonzales and Roberts in this case, which hasn't amounted to much in any arena I'm aware of. Although I think you're right that the conflict is obvious, it certainly isn't a fatal or even a major chink in an argument for Roberts as a justice for the Supreme Court, as the last paragraph in the Slate article clearly states. Politically, it really does not amount to anything. The man will be a justice -- it was a savvy choice by the Bush administration, as much as I hate to say it.
__________________
less I say, smarter I am
|