Roberts-Bashing

The ever-increasing and blatant attempts to smear John Roberts in the wake of his nomination to the Supreme Court have Democrats and the media worked up into a mad furry. We've already mentioned here and here how individuals and organizations have stretched from insulting the way Roberts' children are dressed to investigating a fleeting hope of finding some sort of irregularity in their adoption records. Reaching a new low, the AP joins the Democrats and the New York Times in attempting to make Roberts appear more like the antichrist. Before I continue, I feel the need to point out that more documents about Roberts have already been released than any previous Supreme Court nominee before him - ever. (However, the Democrats continue to demand more) Further, the records demanded of the administration about Roberts bare literally no ground in ascertaining Roberts' intentions as a Supreme Court judge - they were positions he took between a lawyer and a client. But let's move on to the Roberts-bashing:

Senate Democrats are accusing the White House of delaying the release of Roberts' paperwork to ensure Republicans aren't blindsided by information that could hurt his confirmation. "The time for such partisan review of documents was before the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Remember, the White House has already released more documents about Roberts than ever have been released before. Also, many of the records requested are being asked for from the Reagan Presidential Library - not Bush's personal files.

Roberts, a U.S. appeals judge, has acknowledged that he should have told senators before he was confirmed for that job that he worked as lobbyist for the cosmetics industry in 2001.

Whoa! That's enough reason not to confirm him right there! Did he fight for animal testing?! Did he kill puppies?!

He said in a Senate questionnaire that he had "no recollection" of being a member of the Federalist Society. But he was on one of the group's panels in 1993, was listed in a 1997 brochure as a member of the steering committee of the society's Washington chapter, and gave a luncheon speech to the legal group in 2003.

Whether or not his membership in the Federalist Society matters (it doesn't), it matters even less whether or not he gave a speech at a luncheon.

In a final blatant attack on Roberts as the conservative judge:

Roberts picked up the endorsement of the National Association of Manufacturers on Wednesday. "It certainly is, in 2005, time for business to get off the sidelines, so we urge today the Senate confirmation of Judge Roberts," said John Engler, the group's president.

This statement is not only completely unrelated to the story and irrelevant, it is a clear attempt for the the clearly unbiased AP to link Roberts to big business.

Did Judge Roberts ever fail to tip a waitress at a restaurant, or is that kind of incriminating un-Supreme-Court-worthy evidence being concealed by the Reagan library at President Bush's request?