Isn't John Roberts Dreamy?

Conservative apologist David Reinhard, in his 9/18 article in Sunday's Oregonian, does everything but wax poetic on the light beaming from John Roberts' eyes. Reinhard does not take a real look at Roberts, or at the confirmation hearings. He parrots a few dittoes heard often on Fox News, throws in a few quotes, and voila! An article.

This latest spoof on editorials is a further example of Reinhard's incompetence. Did he watch the confirmation hearings? Did he listen to them on that moderate station that is way too loony left for him, NPR? No. If he had, he would surely have commented on Roberts' artful use of the verbal parry (which was impressive) and his coolness under fire (which was well-controlled). Reading Reinhard's column is like reading a summary of the right-wing media's opinion of Roberts, and not an original point of view.

Why doesn't the Oregonian just run a weekly list of Fox News headlines, and save on the salary? Better yet, they can just print the latest RNC talking points verbatim. It would save Reinhard the trouble of trying to form coherent sentences.

Which he noticeably fails to do in his first paragraph, by the way. "John Roberts spent four days before the Senate Judiciary Comittee, and the nation saw that judges who favor the judicial philosophy set forth by President Bush are not a threat to all America holds dear."

I had to read this sentence three times to understand who the subject was. Was it the philosophy of Bush? Was it Bush himself? Oh, it was the judges who favor a certain ideology set forth by a certain man acting on the verb "are not a threat." Got it. Great new streamlining on your new Sunday rollout, Oregonian.

Reinhard then throws in big sounding words--"his only high crime and misdemeanor was unleashing a flood of senatorial baseball metaphors." Why is he using the language of impeachment? "His only gaffe" and "his only mistake" would have served; why is Reinhard going out of his way to show that he actually knows something like legalese?

Probably because he is insecure about his political knowledge. I would be too, if I was nothing but a dittohead.

The brunt of the article (once we get through all the sappy proselytization) points to Roberts' main qualification: he is not an activist judge! Republicans hate activist judges, but boy, is he ever not an activist judge! Got that, everybody? Both RNC talking points are still intact, and Republicans don't actually contradict themselves on a daily basis! Everybody got it?

Thanks, Reinhard. Your work as a propagandist serves Portland admirably. How about you express an original thought next time?

He had the opportunity at the end of the article to do so, when he quoted Roberts saying, "if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy's going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution."

He presents this as a cut and dry wrap up, that Roberts interprets the Constitution literally, no more, no less. But he leaves out a huge, gaping hole in this tidy package.

People interpret the same words differently ALL THE TIME.

Roberts is really saying that if he interprets the Constitution to say something one way, then that is how he will apply it. Reinhard could have made this distinction, and then gone into a discussion on how Roberts interpreted things in his past. This would have been a well-structured analyzation of the next Supreme Court Justice.

But Reinhard is not interested in doing any actual analyzation. His job is to push an agenda, period. His presence on the editorial page of Portland's hometown newspaper is an insult to all people of intelligence who read it.