Editorializing The Supreme Court Confirmations / Nominations

As a confirmed democrat, an outspoken liberal, a member of a minority, perhaps oppressed group (a woman and a lesbian)...I am not afraid of John G. Roberts.

Let us set a high and noble standard for those we appoint to the top bench. Where should that bar rest? It should rest where we find reasoned excellence in the center of any debate. Intelligent answers to complicated issues can only be found with objective voices from both sides.

The Robert's confirmation has been politically motivated, let us make no mistake. Even understanding that Bush appointing Roberts was politically motivated should not sway us from evaluating what the confirmation will mean to the notion of constitutional justice. Constitutional Justice. Understanding the importance of that does not lend itself to extreme views. Would a true liberal who is not an ideologue be more apt to support Roberts or Ginsburg? I have challenged my fellow liberal intellectuals with this question.

My argument is this: stop supporting the mentality of the person and start looking at the methodology of the judge. I find a perfect example in noting that Ginsburg, who represents my political leaning, attempts to set precedent with little constitutional foundation because it will further the liberal agenda. Ruth? Try defending for one moment, a concept that wholly goes against your politics. Only then, are you exercising constitutional objectivity.

John G. Roberts is our Chief Justice...and I am not afraid. Now, Harriet E. Miers has been nominated to fill the Supreme Court seat left empty by Sandra D. O'Conner and everyone seems afraid. The left is baffled at the moderate choice, the right is angered at the moderate choice. Is she a quiet but radical evangelical? Is she a Christian with a sympathetic agenda favoring pro-choice and homosexuals? Please let her be all of the above. Only then, can she lend a true ear to both sides of critical arguments.

Those who desire true constitutional justice will be those who wish for the greatest minds to oversee the interpretation of constitutionality in an ever-changing environment. Those left standing will not be the Ann Coulter or the Michael Moore of this era. Our Constitution has outlived those of their ilk. Our Constitution remains a living document and thrives under the care of absolute gifted objectivity.