Well, really, there's not much I can say about him. Of course, the invaluable Bench Memos at NRO is a much better resource than I could ever claim to be, both in news gathering and in punditry.
The buzz is, he's a conservative, a constructionist, and confirmable. All good things, I suppose, although everyone is secretly worrying that he might turn out like O'Connor or (worst scenario) Souter. Some people say they aren't, but others aren't so sure. Me? I don't know what to think. I guess I'll just have to trust Bush's judgement on this one for now.
The big question on my mind, as with many other pro-lifers, is where Roberts will land on abortion. Would he reverse Roe v. Wade? Would he outlaw partial-birth abortion? This seems to be a big mystery.
NARAL and other pro-choice organizations ar sounding the battle cry, letting everyone know that the most fundamental rights they hold dear are in extreme danger because Bush is putting a lunatic on the court. A lot of pro-life organizations are complaining that Bush dropped the ball on this one, because he nominated someone who won't reverse Roe, given the chance. And a few center-right people I've read say that he'll be a constructionist: He'll call Roe the bad jurisprudence that it is and repeal it, but will leave abortion in the hands of the states and won't work to make it illegal.
I have no idea who to believe. I imagine that NARAL would react as they are to any nominee Bush were to appoint, short of that person actually performing an abortion during their confirmation hearings. Same with the pro-life groups; unless they have pictures of him attending "March for Life" rallies, they won't believe he's a conservative they want to see.
I understand that it's important to put a conservative on the bench who will legislate properly in many areas (for example, eminent domain cases). But I also must admit that the abortion issue is incredibly important to me. How will this all play out? Time will tell. For now, I plead ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment