JUDGE ROBERTS A CONTRADICTION IN MORALITY?
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
It could be so.
According to the Associated Press, Roberts can swing both ways.
That causes the nerves to freeze up in every pro-lifer. It gives pause for rejoicing on the part of every pro-choicer.
Therefore, who is Roberts?
Will the real Roberts please stand up and so be seated on the Supreme Court? After all, who is this rather young judge who has not left much of a “paper trail” by which to judge his decision-making. This is particularly so in regard to pro-life versus pro-choice issues.
The AP reported on the day that US President George W. Bush publicly nominated Roberts to the highest court in the land: “Roberts did co-write a brief that stated, ‘We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.’"
Then the AP reported the following: “Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: ‘Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.’"
So here we are, betwixt and between.
Those close to him refuse to divulge personal conversations with him about moral and political issues. He himself is a quiet fellow who goes about his business without fanfare.
Have we then got an enigma on our hands? And will that turn out to be for the conservatives or for the liberals? A lot hangs in the balance on this personality alone.
Sandra Day O’Connor proved an enigma at first, then she revealed herself to be liberal, much to the disgust and disappointment of conservatives. The same with David Souter.
Conservatives don’t want another disgust-disappoint ordeal.
Does Mr. Bush know whether Roberts is truly anti-killing womb babies? Does Mr. Bush consider that issue paramount in appointing Roberts? Time will tell.
In the meantime, we are left with a quandary. Who is Roberts present-tense?
It could be so.
According to the Associated Press, Roberts can swing both ways.
That causes the nerves to freeze up in every pro-lifer. It gives pause for rejoicing on the part of every pro-choicer.
Therefore, who is Roberts?
Will the real Roberts please stand up and so be seated on the Supreme Court? After all, who is this rather young judge who has not left much of a “paper trail” by which to judge his decision-making. This is particularly so in regard to pro-life versus pro-choice issues.
The AP reported on the day that US President George W. Bush publicly nominated Roberts to the highest court in the land: “Roberts did co-write a brief that stated, ‘We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.’"
Then the AP reported the following: “Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: ‘Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.’"
So here we are, betwixt and between.
Those close to him refuse to divulge personal conversations with him about moral and political issues. He himself is a quiet fellow who goes about his business without fanfare.
Have we then got an enigma on our hands? And will that turn out to be for the conservatives or for the liberals? A lot hangs in the balance on this personality alone.
Sandra Day O’Connor proved an enigma at first, then she revealed herself to be liberal, much to the disgust and disappointment of conservatives. The same with David Souter.
Conservatives don’t want another disgust-disappoint ordeal.
Does Mr. Bush know whether Roberts is truly anti-killing womb babies? Does Mr. Bush consider that issue paramount in appointing Roberts? Time will tell.
In the meantime, we are left with a quandary. Who is Roberts present-tense?
<< Home