Wednesday, July 27, 2005

I'm not sure what criteria to weigh when deciding whether or not to vote for a Supreme Court nominee. I don't think that just because he makes rulings I don't like should be enough to disqualify him from being accepted. But how should one qualify whether someone is a "good" judge? The number of his rulings that have not been overturned on appeal? Accepting the ABA's rating (how do they come to their conclusion, anyways)?

I only currently have two qualms with John Roberts. One is that he's got very little experience as a judge--two years, as opposed to many years of being a lawyer. But I don't know if that's atypical of justices on the Supreme Court, either, or if that would even really affect his performance overly much. I just assume one needs a different frame of mind to be a judge rather than a lawyer--though this is perhaps not really much of an obstacle.

The second is this.

Which, of course, they're denying.

No comments: