The Rule of Law

I have been amazed at the presumptions made by liberal politicians that John Roberts, if approved for the Supreme Court position recently opened by the death of Justice Rehnquist, would spell the end of justice in America. They decry that the clocks would be turned back 100 years should he preside over this country's highest court. Women would be enslaved and judicial prudence would be "for sale" to big industry who we all know are supported by Right Wing Extremist who are anti-black, environmental decimators, pro-war, and entirely grateful that they can keep their estates upon their deaths by repeal of Rockafellonian tax laws.

I can easily understand how Roberts personally might change the face of America bringing us back to the dark ages. His record indicates....oh, wait,....his record reveals voting that....uhm...actually, we find that his history is filled with judicial prudence and decisions that are supported by the likes of Souter, Thomas, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Ginsburg...whoa... you mean people who majorly vote left-leaning and people who vote right-leaning support his view points? But how dare he think he should be elevated to the status of impartiality of the Supreme Court when he successfuly held positions supporting Reaganesque ideals and industry. How could he possibly possess the character needed to see "all sides" of any given arguement? Might it be that he possess the exact skill set and character necessary to not only fill a vacancy but to improve upon the court's decisionmaking environment by being able to pose or answer questions from a number of viewpoints?

Being from Massachusetts, and loving both the history of this state and politics, I am reminded of the uniqueness of our own historical precendents. Two-hundred and thirty-five years ago, a massacre occured in our fine capital city. British soldiers fired upon an angry mob of demonstrators. By todays standards, they may have been the Cathy Sheehan type of crowd. They may have been the pro-life crowd. They were definetely anti-tax so I guess they would be Republicans or Independants by todays standards. It doesn't matter. The facts are that soldiers fired upon and killed 6 of our citizens. The early statesmen wanted an immediate lynching but we needed to prove to ourselves and the world that we were a truly different and law-abiding society. And here, the Rule of Law would be displayed on the worlds stage. A young Boston lawyer decided to use his own money to represent the soldiers on trial. He lost business because of his choice to represent the defendants. It was not a popular decision, but the right one. He won the case. And from here, the innocence until proven guilty and the right to an good attourney proved to the world that America was truly different. This man, by representing the soldiers proved his character through this trial and many others that would follow. His ability to see all sides of an issue enabled him above many others and proved beneficial as he entered the supreme of positions. He became the second President of the United States. The man was John Adams.

Might we be repeating history. The angry mob shouting death to the soldiers and pelting the lawyer with stones were proved wrong in the court of law in the case of Adams. I think too that they will be proven wrong in the case of Roberts. He might even prove to be a good President but that we will never know.