Judge Roberts: a question mark is not good enough

I watched coverage of the Supreme Court nomination hearings last week, and while I really don't know what to make of Judge Roberts -- same as the rest of us -- that alone is unsatisfying.

After Souter, after Kennedy, after O'Connor, after a Republican-named majority gave us Roe, and then another Republican-named majority reaffirmed it in Casey...why should prolifers be happy to have yet...another...cipher?

Of course, Roberts may prove to be everything his supporters hope for, and more.

But I might point out that, should he uphold Roe, because it's "settled precedent," we won't be able to say he didn't warn us he would do so. Our complaint won't be with him; it will be with the Republican Party that continues its dishonest, cynical, manipulative, lying ways toward movement conservatives and small-government advocates. We will have gotten the short end of the stick again! and really, who can we blame but ourselves? Conservatives who keep buying the Republican snake-oil, after being lied to, and ripped off, over and over--well, who's fault is it, really?

Should Roberts prove to be all we hope, that isn't some great accomplishment, either for Bush or for us; it's only what he promised he would do, only what we have every right to expect from this President. It's like saying you deserve a prize for showing up for work on time.

I think we need to insist, rather loudly, that President Bush's next nominee be someone whose position on "privacy" is clear-cut. Oh, of course the opposition will howl and threaten; they did so when Rehnquist, on record against Roe, was nominated as Chief Justice, yet he was confirmed. Yes, it'll be a battle; but unless the President nominates someone on record pro-Roe, it'll be a battle anyway; why not have someone worth fighting for; someone who will energize prolifers, too?