I have tried to remain objective about Judge Roberts and have tried to keep an open mind about him and refrain from the partisan screaching. Two things jumped out at me from an article's in today's Washington Post
He said that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales interviewed him April 1, and that he met on May 3 with Bush confidants including Cheney, Gonzales, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Roberts said he was interviewed separately by Miers on May 23. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced on July 1 her decision to retire. Roberts said he had a telephone interview with Miers and deputy counsel William K. Kelley on July 8 and was interviewed by Bush on July 15, with Miers present. He said none questioned him about his views on any case or legal issue.
Let me see if I understand this, the White House was interviewing a highly respected attorney and Judge for a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court and in the course of 5 meetings with, among others, Cheney, Card, Rove, Libby, and the President no one asked him about his views on ANY legal issue? Does anyone really believe that? What else were they talking about, baseball? That is just absurd.
Now, here's the first thing that has given me great pause about this nomination.
...new documents released by the National Archives from Roberts's tenure as a senior adviser to the attorney general during the Reagan administration make clear that he was deeply skeptical of the court's recognition of a citizen's fundamental "right to privacy" -- the legal concept that underpinned its historic 1973 decision upholding a right to abortion.
Abortion rights aside, a person who does not believe that the United States Constitution contains a right to privacy should not serve on the United States Supreme Court. The right to privacy is an inherent, if not explicit, right of all American's. No reasonable person on either side of the aisle believes that there isn't at least some right to privacy within the Constitution. Reasonable men may disagree to what extent that right extends but there is no argument, except by extremists, that NO right to privacy exists. Are there any Republican's in Congress who do not recognize a right to privacy? I would guess perhaps Santorum, any others? If Roberts really does not believe in a right to privacy he is unfit for the Court.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.