Tuesday, July 19, 2005

My take on the SC Nominee

My opinion regarding Bush's pick for Supreme Court Associate Justice:

1. He looks smart.
2. He looks white and male (oops- sorry Laura).
3. He looks like a judge (or a college professor, maybe a pastor).
4. His name is terribly boring (no Rehnquist, Ginsberg or Scalia fun).
5. People will be peeved.
6. All the commentary, op-ed pieces, pundits and experts were worth what we would expect (very little). I am glad they are not Vegas oddsmakers.
7. He will be beaten up, battered, but the next justice.
8. He has probably never smoked pot, hired a nanny from Mexico, sexually harassed an underling, berated and employee or rented dirty movies. He is clean.
9. But, then again, Bush has never cared about such things.
10. He will be more independently minded than Bush and the Right think he is.

Beats the heck out of me. I have never met the guy. I could give you an "opinion" based upon moveon.org, Focus on the Family or some other partisan group with lots riding on the nomination, but I have none.

Let the Games Begin!


DAVID C. PRICE said...

I suspect you're right on with the analysis, though I'm not sure number nine is a particularly fair judgment, especially since, as you said about Roberts, you've "never met the guy." ;-) I trust your sermon/sermonette/homily went well Sunday?

DJ Word said...

#9 is based more on the fact that Bush zigs when they want him to zag and does what he wants sometimes. I think he enjoys the controversy, but still I think this guy is clean, based more on history than him.

#10 is just a hunch. He has a glimmer in his eye. There is no basis for the argument.

Yeah, it went well on Sunday. I think. I used a manuscript which I do not do. It was only a 12 minute long homliy, which we Baptists has no training for, so I kept to my text to not go on and on.

Instead of saying why we should help Darfur and preaching to a choir, or heeping guilt upon us and the US for not doing enough. I reminded us it is a fallen world in which people kill those who are different, just with more efficiency.

But, using Psalm 10, I spoke of God's hatred for injustice coupled with Christ's victory over death, which gives us hope in the midst of injustice.

I thought it would be better to remind them of God's promises.

thanks for askin

DAVID C. PRICE said...

No problem. Sounds like it was a good direction to move in on the sermon.

I think you are right on the point about Bush's enjoyment. I do think he sometimes makes sport of keeping people guessing...you know, the whole "Don't mess with Texas thing"...and all.

james said...

I saw the same "glimmer in the eye" you did Rick. I think you are onto something.

kidpositive said...

you know, i was going to say something about this before, but didn't. in my opinion, bush made the smartest, shrewdest choice possible. he chose a nominee that is above reproach and is not a radical, but is instead a solid person with an impeccable record. by doing this, bush took out any steam from the left that they could use to raise the level of acrimony in this country. smart chess move if you ask me, because bush gets a good nominee, while silencing the left on the issue, and (fortunately) saving us from having to witness any more controversy over the matter.

there's no telling, however, what will happen the second time around.

Bob Robinson said...

I got a call today from "Concerned Women for America" wanting me to contribute to their organization since I am "pro-life" and they are going to "work hard to ensure that the liberals do not stop the confirmation of John Roberts."

I told the girl on the line that
(a) I am indeed pro-life,
(b) I believe being pro-life includes but is not exclusively being anti-abortion, including such issues as AIDS and hunger and poverty and war.

I told her I will not support CWA as long as they
(a) ignore the entire spectrum of pro-life issues, and
(b) continue to equate Christianity with right-wing Republican politics.

She said, "Thank you," and hung up.