Yes, Judge Roberts Eats Eggs "Benedict"

Jonathan Rothenberg takes a crack at summarizing the Democrats' avenues of attack against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. They boil down to....

1) Demand documents (from his solicitor-general's office days) that he can't turn over;

2) Demand he render case prejudgments he cannot offer;

3) Denounce him as a right-wing fundie abortuary-bombing snake-handler.

Well, there are a couple of others that Mr. Rothenberg could have added, but that's just as well. Besides, there's so much to expand upon behind door #3.

George Neumayr warms us up:

On CNN, Miles O'Brien asked a guest: "And, you know, he's, you know, by all accounts, a Roman Catholic who adheres to the tenets of that faith. Do you suspect that he will advocate and when the opportunity comes up, reversing some of the key aspects of Roe v. Wade, which provide abortion rights in this country?"

On MSNBC, one of Tucker Carlson's sparring partners even raised an objection to Roberts' wife's personal views, reporting with alarm her ties to a pro-life group.

This would be Feminists for Life, of which Mrs. Roberts was Executive Vice President. A fact which the Los Angeles Times, for some strange reason, found endlessly fascinating (via CQ):

While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.

A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."

Or are simply seeing what they want to see. The fact that a wife might actually be her husband's advisor - imagine that! - didn't seem to perturb people like Ms. Palmieri when it was Hillary Clinton declaring to the nation thirteen years ago that she and her husband (who happened to be seeking an even higher office at the time) were a "blue plate special." Indeed, her comments could be construed as sexist, since the implication is that Judge Roberts has no mind or opinions of his own other than what his wife pumps into him. For all the vomit the other side would have hurled at, say, Edith Holland Jones, would they have called her a blank slate at the intellectual mercy of her husband?

Damn right, they would. Ed Whelan even speculates, tongue only half in cheek, that Senate Donks might just demand that Mrs. Roberts appear with her husband and answer pillow talk questions.

So committed to the anti-Christian angle are some on the Left that they are seemingly oblivious to their own incoherence:

The lead article in today's The American Prospect, an online magazine, says that President Bush's selection of Judge John Roberts for a seat on the Supreme Court is evidence of his "Playing the Catholic card."

According to Adele M. Stan, Bush is "betting he's bought himself some insulation - any opposition to Roberts, particularly because of his anti-abortion record, will likely be countered with accusations of anti-Catholicism."

Well, sure, if they pursue Roberts on that angle like they did now-appellate court Judge William Pryor a year ago, something that can be fully expected right along with all the other usual slime.

Stan couldn't just puke once or twice; she had to continue into dry heave territory:

She says this is a "timely pitch" to "conservative Catholic voters prior to the midterm elections"; she urges "liberal Catholics" and others to protest Roberts.

Stan goes even further on her blog, AddieStan, by saying "Rome must be smiling" at Bush's choice. She asks that readers contact the Democratic Catholics on the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Roberts.

Would that not constitute playing the "anti-Catholic" card? Just asking.

Certainly was news to Catholic League president William Donohue:

We had no idea that John G. Roberts, Jr. was a Roman Catholic until today. But when we learned of his religious affiliation, we wondered how long it would be before his religion would be dragged into the debate.

"We didn't have to wait too long: The American Prospect, never friendly to Catholics, let Adele M. Stan do its bidding. Roberts, she says, was chosen purely for sinister reasons.

"Now let's apply this logic to President Clinton's selection of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer for the Supreme Court. Did he do so because he liked 'Playing the Jewish card'? And did he do so because he wanted his critics to be seen as anti-Semites? For good measure, was Israel 'smiling' when Clinton chose Ginsburg and Breyer?

"The fact that Jew baiting did not accompany the nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer shows how this nation has progressed.

"Unfortunately, within 24 hours of Roberts' nomination, Catholic baiting has raised its ugly head. And the fact that it is coming from a mainstream liberal source is even more disconcerting. We hope this is not the beginning of an ugly few months."

That hope is already forelorn. Just look at where most of the Roberts' political contributions have gone. If libs believed in hell, they would send the their whole family there, dancing tyke and all.

Let's close the loop and let Mr. Neumayr have the last word:

Let's hope...the Republicans repeat what they did during the Pryor hearings and draw attention to the anti-Catholic test contained in the Democrats' criteria. They are not looking for a judge but a politically correct signatory to the ongoing Constitutional Convention they want the Supreme Court to remain. All the talk of a nominee's "personal views" is nothing more than a litmus test against those who subscribe to the theistic philosophy that informed America's founding documents. By "mainstream thinking" the Democrats mean thinking like those in the minority, a group of de facto secularists who only approve of followers of religion entering the public square if they promise to lose it.