New at YDN
I make a case against John Roberts that has nothing to do with abortion. Nut graph:
Now we can see the outstanding debt the liberal left owes for mortgaging its integrity in the innocent 1990s. It accepted pittances from the Clinton administration -- pro-choice and pro-affirmative action judges, lip service to universal health care, etc. -- and looked the other way as a Democratic administration laid the foundations of its successor's horrendous assaults on civil liberties. Without a plausible caricature of John Roberts as a compatriot of James Dobson, the left simply cannot muster the organizational strength to fight his nomination; having spent so many years raising funds and votes by frightening pro-choice moderates, the liberal left is utterly unable to make a coherent case that a nominee who supports Roe v. Wade might still be a net loss for individual rights. (Libertarians can make that case, but they are politically insignificant.)Btw, you'll notice that I'm now a titled columnist, so if you pick up the YDN on a Wednesday, you'll be guaranteed a column either by me or by Keith Urbahn.
ADDENDUM: In discussing the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, I described Roberts' actions as those of a "servile courtier." Turns out I was uncanny:
While the case was pending in his court, Roberts was interviewing with high White House officials -- including Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove -- for a seat on the Supreme Court. In the words of the federal law on judicial disqualification, this placed the judge in a situation where "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."