|
I think the french fry case is a good example of why Roberts might be the right choice. He's a stickler for making judgements based on law. He thought the whole thing was a waste of time, but knew his duty as a judge and followed through without regard to his personal prejudices. When he was a lawyer, he argued for his client, not for himself. I suspect that if, as a lawyer, he had taken on a case for Greenpeace, he would've argued just as stridently as he did for Toyota. Could be wrong, but I think he is incredibly self-disciplined about performing his job correctly and without personal bias.
He's nice and boring, just what is needed in the SCOTUS. I suspect Durbin, Schumer, and Kennedy will keel over from aneurysms trying to force him to reveal his political leaning on pet Dem issues, and he will (rightly) be mute as a stone.
|