ROBERTS IS THE RIGHT CHOICE
By Bob Confer

As we unfortunate, more-conservative upstaters know too well, one of our voices in Washington - Charles Schumer - is the poster boy for extreme liberalism. He could be considered the "left of the left" as his beliefs are so unabashedly liberal that he actually gets under the skin of his democrat brethren, too. That being said, it’s exciting to see how much disdain he has for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

The media rumor mill notes Schumer was visibly upset when Roberts’ nomination was announced earlier this week. Since then, Schumer has proved to be the most vocal of dissenters by aggressively traversing the talk show circuit in an effort to spread the word against Roberts. This was to be expected as the two have a history of conflict dating back to Roberts’ nomination to the DC Court of Appeals in 2003. Back then, Schumer was one of only three democrats to vote against Roberts. Schumer cited an inability by Roberts to answer key questions as the reason behind his "nay" vote.

In truth, the reason behind Schumer’s lack of consent was Roberts’ inability to answer key questions as Schumer would have liked him to. These men are two diametrically opposed human beings. If Schumer represents all that is liberal, then Roberts is conservatism incarnate. Cultured by his gritty Western New York and Indiana roots, the intellectual Roberts has developed a reputation for values and steadfast belief in the way things should be, not they way things could be. Not one for reinventing laws or creating grey areas, he follows the laws as they were written. Schumer, on the other hand, follows the liberal belief that the federal judicial system can and should constantly redefine law. It would tear him up inside to see someone like Roberts in power, one who believes in the quality of law and the primordial doctrines stating the Supreme Court should administer, not create, law.

Furthering adding to Schumer’s displeasure in Roberts would be an assumed loss of federal power. Democrats as a whole, and liberals more so than most, believe the federal government should have unabated amounts of power to regulate and enforce throughout all levels of the American political-economic structure. Roberts, on the other hand, believes judicial power belongs to the states as it was truly intended by our forefathers. For the environmentalist, pro-abortion liberal masses who thrive on the federal government overstepping its bounds in order to promulgate their agenda, Roberts’ appointment would be bad news.

Remember, though, that Roberts’ nomination is only the tip of the iceberg. It could not come at a more opportune time for those who are appreciative of the classic interpretation of law. Roberts has a very good chance of being one of at least two justices selected under Bush, a man who strives to instill conservatism in all his appointments. The other would appointee would be necessary if William Rehnquist’s health falters to the point of a forced retirement. Therefore, Bush will have the rare distinction of being able to choose a handful of justices, which, in turn, will significantly affect judicial policy for the next two or three decades.

This all invariably frustrates Schumer beyond belief. His ire proves Roberts is the appropriate choice for the Supreme Court. Only a bleeding-heart liberal intent on changing judicial practice could be so against Roberts, who is a living, breathing Boy Scout, respected by his peers, republicans, and moderate democrats alike. As it appears now, Schumer will be a minority and he will have a long uphill battle in his efforts to eliminate Roberts, probably stopping well short of a filibuster. Needless to say, when all is said and done we will see a familiarly angry and downtrodden Schumer as, once again, the far left will lose face to the Bush Administration.