A question for my Democrat friends

[karen]

(you know who you are ;) I am confused by some of the people who would be thought of as big wheel Dems (Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry and my favorite Mrs. Boxer) saying things like how Bush needs to pick someone who will "unite the country" First of all, who the heck would that BE and secondly do they really think that is going to happen?? If the situation were reversed and Kerry were appointing someone (or Clinton) I would not expect their choices to be someone I would agree with. I think that regardless of who appoints whom, everyone's interpretation of the Constitution will vary (no way we can all agree on how that is interpeted, we've debated that at length here before) I am curious if you feel a person could actually unite the country and why anyone would expect an appointment by any prez to be unbiased. Your thoughts???

[shanbaum]

It's not a question of the choice being "biased" or not, but how "biased" it's going to be.

Everyone expected Bush's choice to be a conservative, but believe it or not, the "conservative" label comprises a wide range of beliefs generally, and an equally wide range of legal philosophies. Thomas and O'Connor are both conservatives, but as jurists, they're as different as night and day (heh).

In fact, I'm pretty relieved by Roberts' nomination. First of all, he has a great name. Second, it appears that he's something of a cipher - the left has to be concerned that he's another Scalia (a right-wing ideologue), while the right has to be concerned that he's another Souter (not a right-wing ideologue). He has astonishingly impressive credentials which suggest that he's actually really, really smart, and while he's obviously a Republican, and a conservative, there's nothing to indicate that he's an extremist in the Scalia or Thomas molds (or some other). There is certainly no shortage of candidates who fall into that latter category, so, the fact that this guy is not one of them (at least not obviously) may be cause for a minor celebration.

Perhaps it is telling that you ask the question that you do ask; there was a time when a president would have felt obliged to consider the beliefs of the roughly one-half of voters, who voted against him. Certainly, one of the complaints of Democrats is that this administration has shown zero reluctance to pursue a radical agenda in the face of a substantial opposition (numerically, that is) - compare, for example, Clinton, who made a point of having a Republican in a major position in his cabinet after winning only a plurality in 1992. I have to admit, however, that Roberts appears to be an exception to that modus operandi of this administration - so, if I wanted to be charitable, I could say that maybe this is an instance of Bush doing something responsible. Relatively speaking. You didn't hear that from me.

At any rate, the question at hand for both sides of the political spectrum is - "do you feel lucky?"