Why Not Roberts?

Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


Via Shakespeare’s Sister, it looks like Pat Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, will vote to confirm John Roberts. Says Leahy: “All of us will vote this month but only later will we know if Judge Roberts proves to be the kind of chief justice he says he would be, if he truly will be his own man.” What?

This gets at the heart of what’s wrong with Leahy’s whole stance. All through the hearings, it was pretty clear that Roberts answered precisely zero questions about his stances on just about anything. He refused to comment on past case, or future cases, or hypothetical cases, or even the ideas inherent in the cases themselves. It was, as many have pointed out, a farce. The thing is, there’s no reason it has to be this way. As Emily Bazelon pointed out in Slate, Roberts should have answered the damn questions: “Nothing in any legal code or judicial canon of ethics supports the broad stance against answering questions.”

Now granted, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton nominee, also was very fond of taking the “Judicial Fifth” during her confirmation hearings, but the only thing to be said about that is that she was wrong to do so. Letting Roberts’ evasiveness pass sets a terrible standard for the future. I would imagine—although who knows for sure—that the White House has gleaned a relatively clear picture of Roberts’ views during its interviews with him. The public, along with the Senate, has not. Ted Kennedy has said he didn’t know enough about Roberts to confirm him: “At the end of the four days of hearings, we still know very little more than we knew when we started.” I doubt Kennedy would vote to confirm no matter what. Nevertheless, that, and not Leahy’s position, is exactly the right precedent to try and uphold.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate