Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The anti-Earl Warren

There's not a whole lot that I want to mark down at the moment about Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts to take O'Conner's seat on the US Supreme Court, primarily for two reasons.

Roberts comes into this gig a veritable unknown, something that I'm sure was surgically crafted by the Rove machine as a means of placating conservatives (who see his record and more or less conclude that he could pleasantly surprise them) while giving little ammunition to progressives to protest against him. Make no bones about it. Roberts will develop into the anti-Earl Warren. Because of or in spite of Robert's small judicial record (he's only been a judge for 2 years fer chrissakes), there's not a whole helluva lot to pin on him, much less say about him. He'll been flown through Congress as a middle-of-the-road judge and end up turning the Constitutional table over once he's on the bench, scaring the shit out of us much, much later. (We'll see in September if Democrats have anything to say in protest, though from the looks of things right now, I highly doubt it).

That's bullet number one.

Bullet number two is that Bush putting his guy on the SCOTUS should pale in comparison to the on-fire controversy of Karl Rove's egregious CIA outing. I watched left-blog after left-blog this week bitch and moan about how Bush was announcing Roberts in an attempt to move the media focus onto something besides Turd Blossom. And yet, sure enough, those same blogs took the bait like nobody's business, ditching just about all discussion on Rove in favor of rooting out Robert's past. The Daou Report is practically peppered on the Left with either minimal Rove savaging or complete ballroom dancing with the Roberts/Supreme Court distraction. Even Right wingers are wiping their brows and thanking god that the Rove controversy is out of the spotlight.

Their mistake. As the trouble's about to get a whole lot hotter.


Post a Comment

<< Home