I mentioned in the comments to this post I mentioned that I don't really know enough about John Roberts to really have an opinion on the nomination. That is still true, but there is one "controversy" that I do know enough about.
Many people are making a lot of comments on the fact that Roberts signed, and presumably worked on, a brief for the senior Bush administration opposing abortion. Now, this is just silly to make a huge deal out of this. Lawyers are paid to advocate for their clients, and sometimes their clients' positions will be different than their own. It is a straw man, easy to knock down. It really is no evidence of his true opinion.
Let me be clear: I'm staunchly pro-choice. I would like to see someone relatively liberal taking up the court. I'm critical of the choice of Roberts, though I don't have an opinion at this time. That is due to his close Republican ties and work history, though, and not because of what briefs he put his name on. I am all about people being very critical of this fellow, but this is just not the way to do it. By focusing on this brief issue, all the opponents do is divert the attention from real issues to one that can easily be refuted.
A better strategy would have been to hold back a day or two and do some real research, instead of hitting the first thing that comes up. If this really is the only thing that does, well, unfortunately the only grounds to oppose the nomination will be ideological, which is a harder sell. We'll see what happens, but without something earth-shattering, it seems likely that October will see Associate Justice Roberts on the bench.
