The Evil Green Eye...
After lauding him, and pressing the Democrats to vote in favor of the man—based on his high qualifications—the WaPo today does an editorial on Chief Justice Roberts. And one only needs to read the opening paragraphs to know what the paper’s problem is. Seemingly, it sounds like they might be a bit jealous. (Hat-Tip: Wide Awake Cafe)
http://wideawakecafe.blogspot.com/2005/09/job-of-lifetime.html
John G. Roberts Jr. is breathing the kind of air that the rest of us can only dream about, the air of kings and queens and one-name celebrities like Oprah.
He's got Mick Jagger juice now, baby.
They're the folks who possess that rarest of powers -- they've got a job for life. Roberts is right up there with the pope in terms of job security. That is, as long as he lives up to the Constitution's demand of "good behavior."
After being sworn in yesterday afternoon as the nation's 17th chief justice, Roberts said he planned to show up at the office today. But if he doesn't, there's not a thing anybody can do about it. The media might fuss and others might grumble, but that would be it. It would take an act of Congress to fire the guy.
If he wants to take a break every Thursday morning to play tennis -- as his mentor and predecessor, the late William Rehnquist, did -- no problem. The only clock he's got to punch for the rest of his life is his own. And, as so many senators liked to point out during the recent confirmation hearings, Roberts is just 50, the youngest chief justice in two centuries. If he does play tennis weekly -- or golf, or whatever -- and eats well, there's a good chance that Roberts will outlast at least four presidents.
What’s the matter? The WaPo guys don’t get adequate vacation time? Please. I seriously doubt that Chief Justice Roberts will be lax in his duties to the high court. He certainly wasn’t when it came to the DC Court of Appeals. He was a consummate professional, and always did his best.
It’s amazing how quickly the tides turn. The man was sworn in yesterday, and today the WaPo decides to take swipes at him. Yes, they have a point, albeit small. There is precious little that can be done to the man to remove him. The standard of "good Behaviour" that is enumerated under Article III is one that has been misinterpreted by many people, including Congress.
I take that standard for what the Framers believed it to be. That is, one does their job appropriately and exceptionally, or they don’t have a job any longer. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer have opted, in recent years, to inject foreign law into their reasonings and decisions. For me, personally, that does not fall under the standard stated in Article III. The justices involved in striking down our property rights in Kelo also did not follow that standard.
We do not remove justices (and to my knowledge, only one judge has ever been impeached) because they decide to play tennis or golf. I have never even seen a lawyer chastised for their recreational habits. So, why is the WaPo doing this now, especially after hyping the new Chief? Again, I can only draw the conclusion that some little moonbat at the paper is jealous. Maybe it’s because he/she failed to get their vacation, or it was cut short. Maybe it’s because they had to pay for it this year. Or maybe they lost their membership to their favorite country club. Honestly, folks, who cares why?
The fact of the matter is that they went back to the "business as usual" status quo. But the one thing they won’t be able to deny is that the new Chief will end up working harder and smarter than the snipey moonbats at the WaPo. And that’s the fact that, more than likely, really sticks in their craw. And a little tidbit for the WaPo: Roberts is better and smarter than Oprah. That was a bad comparison. And based on Jagger's history and career, I doubt Roberts is indulging in the juice that Jagger used to imbibe.
Publius II
After lauding him, and pressing the Democrats to vote in favor of the man—based on his high qualifications—the WaPo today does an editorial on Chief Justice Roberts. And one only needs to read the opening paragraphs to know what the paper’s problem is. Seemingly, it sounds like they might be a bit jealous. (Hat-Tip: Wide Awake Cafe)
http://wideawakecafe.blogspot.com/2005/09/job-of-lifetime.html
John G. Roberts Jr. is breathing the kind of air that the rest of us can only dream about, the air of kings and queens and one-name celebrities like Oprah.
He's got Mick Jagger juice now, baby.
They're the folks who possess that rarest of powers -- they've got a job for life. Roberts is right up there with the pope in terms of job security. That is, as long as he lives up to the Constitution's demand of "good behavior."
After being sworn in yesterday afternoon as the nation's 17th chief justice, Roberts said he planned to show up at the office today. But if he doesn't, there's not a thing anybody can do about it. The media might fuss and others might grumble, but that would be it. It would take an act of Congress to fire the guy.
If he wants to take a break every Thursday morning to play tennis -- as his mentor and predecessor, the late William Rehnquist, did -- no problem. The only clock he's got to punch for the rest of his life is his own. And, as so many senators liked to point out during the recent confirmation hearings, Roberts is just 50, the youngest chief justice in two centuries. If he does play tennis weekly -- or golf, or whatever -- and eats well, there's a good chance that Roberts will outlast at least four presidents.
What’s the matter? The WaPo guys don’t get adequate vacation time? Please. I seriously doubt that Chief Justice Roberts will be lax in his duties to the high court. He certainly wasn’t when it came to the DC Court of Appeals. He was a consummate professional, and always did his best.
It’s amazing how quickly the tides turn. The man was sworn in yesterday, and today the WaPo decides to take swipes at him. Yes, they have a point, albeit small. There is precious little that can be done to the man to remove him. The standard of "good Behaviour" that is enumerated under Article III is one that has been misinterpreted by many people, including Congress.
I take that standard for what the Framers believed it to be. That is, one does their job appropriately and exceptionally, or they don’t have a job any longer. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer have opted, in recent years, to inject foreign law into their reasonings and decisions. For me, personally, that does not fall under the standard stated in Article III. The justices involved in striking down our property rights in Kelo also did not follow that standard.
We do not remove justices (and to my knowledge, only one judge has ever been impeached) because they decide to play tennis or golf. I have never even seen a lawyer chastised for their recreational habits. So, why is the WaPo doing this now, especially after hyping the new Chief? Again, I can only draw the conclusion that some little moonbat at the paper is jealous. Maybe it’s because he/she failed to get their vacation, or it was cut short. Maybe it’s because they had to pay for it this year. Or maybe they lost their membership to their favorite country club. Honestly, folks, who cares why?
The fact of the matter is that they went back to the "business as usual" status quo. But the one thing they won’t be able to deny is that the new Chief will end up working harder and smarter than the snipey moonbats at the WaPo. And that’s the fact that, more than likely, really sticks in their craw. And a little tidbit for the WaPo: Roberts is better and smarter than Oprah. That was a bad comparison. And based on Jagger's history and career, I doubt Roberts is indulging in the juice that Jagger used to imbibe.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home