And yet Ann has NO knowledge of the President's research, interaction and possible W.H. files on Roberts from his days in the Reagan and Bush administration. She dismisses the President knows what she does not. That is not irresponsibility on the President's part. That is a temper tantrum on hers.
If she wishes to make the point she'd like more personal opinions authored by Roberts, fair enough. But the extent to wish she wants further knowledge to satisfy her own curiosities is as far as she can credibly opinionate. There may be NO doubt in the President's mind, and after five years with this man, I do not believe anyone can advance the idea he's chosen to gamble on hope. The president is confidant Roberts is secure.
Either do you. I'm sure many people used the same argument to defend Reagan and Bush with their appointments, but it turns out they had no "inside" knowledge of O'Connor or Souter. Wise conservatives in the electorate and the Senate should demand more.
There may be NO doubt in the President's mind, and after five years with this man, I do not believe anyone can advance the idea he's chosen to gamble on hope. The president is confidant Roberts is secure.
How do you know the President is trying to accomplish the same goals with this pick that you are hoping he is trying to accomplish? The best assurance that a judicial pick is "secure" is a past record of faithfully applying the consititution on the bench - a record which Luttig, Alito, and Garza have, and Roberts does not.