John Roberts, Reconsidered
The three poles of the Republican coalition — national security conservatives, social conservatives and economic conservatives — are a surprisingly disparate bunch. While there are politicians and figures who can credibly claim to be all three, most of the time, nationally prominent Republicans have to win the trust of one or two of the factions and even then, aren’t completely trusted. One way that Republicans can unify, however, is around Supreme Court appointments.
Conservative jurisprudence, not at all coincidentally, is perfectly aligned with the politics of the three factions. A model conservative jurist will favor the secrecy and executive power claims that national security conservatives make, will rule in favor of large corporations and against workers and will, where he can, strike down or limit socially liberal legislation. So, when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices, conservatives tend to A. view appointments as incredibly important and B. rally around conservative nominees they like.
That’s why some centrist and even liberal commentators were so silly to think that Roberts would be “modest” or “moderate” or “humble.” Would George Bush have appointed a jurist that wasn’t a stalking horse for conservative concerns? Would the conservative movement have rallied around some Anthony Kennedy or David Souter like figure? Of course not. These people aren’t idiots. Exactly why we were supposed to think that someone whose political career was started in the Reagan Justice Department and who had always been a loyal member of the conservative movement would disappoint them is beyond me.
Hopefully, Jeffrey Toobin’s extensive and pointed New Yorker article will put to rest any remaining claims that Roberts is a humble moderate. Here’s the nut of the piece:
In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.
This really shouldn’t be a surprise. Hopefully, next time a conservative president is appointing a Supreme Court justice, liberal and moderate commentators won’t be so easily fooled.
