Rules of the Game

JOHN ROBERTS’s Senate confirmation hearings are set to begin on September 6. They could be a useful opportunity for exploration of the character and qualifications of President Bush’s first nominee to the Supreme Court; more likely they will be a grandstanding political ping-pong match with Roberts serving as the ball. When the Washington Post reported recently that Roberts’s confirmation was all but assured, liberal Vermont senator Patrick Leahy stepped in within hours to douse any talk of inevitability; he characterized Roberts as an “eager and aggressive advocate” for the extreme Right.

Most of the Democrats’ pit bulls on the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin any discussion about Roberts with the admission that he has impressive credentials. New York’s Chuck Schumer conceded that Roberts is an “impressive, accomplished, and brilliant lawyer,” who “appears to be a decent and honorable man,” with a “remarkable résumé”-but that, Schumer reported, “by itself, is not enough to get my vote.” So what is enough? According to Schumer, it is the assurance that John Roberts fits within the “broad mainstream.” But Chuck Schumer’s definition of mainstream probably differs a bit from, say, Ronald Reagan’s, so his statement does not tell us much. His colleague, California’s Barbara Boxer, is a little less opaque about the subject, stating unequivocally that she will vote against Roberts unless he vows to uphold the right to abortion created by Roe v. Wade and threatening to grind the nomination process to a halt unless Roberts answers her questions on Roe.

About the Author

Shannen W. Coffin

Shannen W. Coffin, a contributing editor to National Review, practices appellate law in Washington, D.C.

Featured Tags

JOHN ROBERTS’s Senate confirmation hearings are set to begin on September 6. They could be a useful opportunity for exploration of the character and qualifications of President Bush’s first nominee to the Supreme Court; more likely they will be a grandstanding political ping-pong match with Roberts serving as the ball. When the Washington Post reported recently that Roberts’s confirmation was all but assured, liberal Vermont senator Patrick Leahy stepped in within hours to douse any talk of inevitability; he characterized Roberts as an “eager and aggressive advocate” for the extreme Right.

Most of the Democrats’ pit bulls on the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin any discussion about Roberts with the admission that he has impressive credentials. New York’s Chuck Schumer conceded that Roberts is an “impressive, accomplished, and brilliant lawyer,” who “appears to be a decent and honorable man,” with a “remarkable résumé”-but that, Schumer reported, “by itself, is not enough to get my vote.” So what is enough? According to Schumer, it is the assurance that John Roberts fits within the “broad mainstream.” But Chuck Schumer’s definition of mainstream probably differs a bit from, say, Ronald Reagan’s, so his statement does not tell us much. His colleague, California’s Barbara Boxer, is a little less opaque about the subject, stating unequivocally that she will vote against Roberts unless he vows to uphold the right to abortion created by Roe v. Wade and threatening to grind the nomination process to a halt unless Roberts answers her questions on Roe.