Junto Boys

ROBERTS ON TRIAL, etc.

Philly talk show host Michael Smerconish spent time this morning in the offices of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R?-PA) on Capitol Hill.

I become more impressed with Sen. Santorum every time I hear him speak. He has really been making the rounds where he can speak for himself and overcome to some extent the image the media conveys of him. He is a brilliant man who can extemporaneously lay out a rational, persuasive position on any of the topics of the day. He is forthright, articulate, direct, unambiguous, not afraid to take a position, and a man of great personal convictions. Of course the latter point is what scares the media types and why they go to great lengths to caricature him as the usual out-of-touch, backwards, extremist simpleton. He faces a difficult re-election campaign next year and needs to do better in Philadelphia which votes overwhelmingly blue and tends to carry the state. He is doing a lot of local radio, attending Phillies games and talking Eagles footballs.

Sen. Specter never fails to live up to his reputation as one of the cockiest SOBs on mother Earth. He volunteered that he will go directly and immediately after John Roberts on the issue of Roe v. Wade (Specter is pro-choice) in his opening question, along the lines of "Judge Roberts, what is your position on a woman's right to choose, as established in Roe v. Wade and upheld by Casey v. Planned Parenthood and entrenched as the law of this land for 32 years?" with references to stare decisis and so forth. That's the question everyone wants answered, so at least we get it on the table right away. Then we get to hear it asked a hundred different ways by the other panelists.

Every time I hear Specter talk about the Judiciary Committee hearings, he makes the point that Roberts is 50 years old, Stevens is 85 years old, and if Roberts were to serve 35 years on the high court, that could tremendously impact the direction of the nation. Even better, if Roberts serves 35 years, and O'Connor's replacement serves 25 years and Stevens' replacement serves 25 years, their combined impact could have a seismic shift on the direction of the nation. The point of contention, of course, is whether one thinks the direction of the nation needs changed.

Another interesting question is whether the Supreme Court lags or leads -- whether it sets the tone or merely responds to it. But that's for another day.

I remember during the presidential election all the reporting on the polls which asked the question, "Do you think the country is heading in the right direction?" and how all the pundits interpretated the negative responses to that question as indictments of Bush. My own response to the question would be Yes, I think the country is heading in the wrong direction, but for that reason I supported Bush rather than opposed him. Isn't it reasonable to consider that many of Bush's core supporters believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, which is why they back the more conservative candidate? That connection was not often made in the political reporting.

In other words, the reporting was (a) Bush is in charge; (b) people don't like the direction the country is going; therefore (c) Bush is failing, or Bush is responsible for all the angst. An alternate valid construction is (a) people believe the country is heading in the wrong direction; (b) liberal leadership has taken the country in that direction; therefore (c) those people prefer conservative leadership. Our assumptions always inform our conclusions.