John Roberts FTW

I'd like to declare my endorsement for John Roberts. His credentials are impeccable. The Washington Post has his profile neatly compiled for your viewing pleasure, so I won't go into details about his impressive history.

I liked the way he held his own during the confirmation hearing and handled some heated questioning from Democrat senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. He successfully upheld his judicial impartiality, as the following transcript demonstrates (pardon the length):

"Now, the only point I was going to make earlier, because I do think it's an important one -- you (Joe Biden) make the point that, "We stand for election and we wouldn't be elected if we didn't tell people what we stand for."

Judges don't stand for election. I'm not standing for election. And it is contrary to the role of judges in our society to say that, "This judge should go on the bench because these are his or her positions and those are the positions they're going to apply."

Judges go on the bench and they apply and decide cases according to the judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected or promises made earlier to get confirmed.

That's inconsistent with the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court."

The NY Times wrote an editorial yesterday urging senators to vote against confirming Roberts while the Washington Post's editorial called Roberts "overwhelmingly qualified." The Post goes further to say that the only problem with Roberts is that he sets the standard for future nominees too high. I agree.

I think we need a conservative voice in the Supreme Court to address the latest federal district court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the "Under God" phrase. Let's celebrate our similarities for once -- We are all Americans. We ought to be able to pay tribute to our country, without having to deny its Christian roots. Go get 'em John!