Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I don't think anyone questions Roberts' qualifications, because he is superbly qualified. The political reality of greatest import is not "grandstanding" as you suggest, but attempting to determine where Roberts will take the court over the next 30 years. Had his opinions and writings from the first Bush administration been relinquished, we would know a great deal more about how he views the law.
|
That is true. However, the members of the judiciary committee knew enough about Roberts' record to know:
a. that he is qualified for the job
b. that he will uphold the constitution
The problem is that they also know they will disagree with Roberts' judicial philosophy. Thus, this is not a matter of the Democrats thinking that Roberts won't do his job on the bench: they just think he will vote the wrong way and thus oppose him on pragmatic, political, and inappropriate grounds.
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
|