The Mysterious Man

The problem with John Roberts is that we don't know what kind of person he is. He just won't tell us. When questioned by Senate Democrats last week, Roberts made it impossible for many to draw any conclusions about his character.

Rather than telling them what he'll do if this and that happens, he just says that he'll follow whatever the Constitution states. The guy's smart: Firstly because it means he'll keep an open mind when judging cases, with no preceding prejudice. Secondly, because it's impossible to find fault with his answer since he's basically not giving them anything to fire at.

What Dahlia Lithwick says in her column from Slate is true. Sure, Roberts seems like someone who can approach cases without letting his personal opinions get in the way. He's a by-the-book man.

But there are many different ways to look at something. What if he reads the law from a different slant?

And if the US is appointing Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, does that mean that they want all courts in the country to emulate what he's like? As Lithwick puts it, John Roberts is passive. He's a yes-man. Whatever's written in the Constitution, he'll follow. The question is this:Can judgements actually be "principled and fair" if they exclude personal insight and are based entirely on a bunch of words written a long time ago.

When talking about the technicalities of the column, Lithwick does a good job except for the part where she begins to explain about "law-plus" in paragraph eight. I got a little lost there but the conclusion to the article managed to convince me on her stand.