George W. Bush hides in plain sight
The brilliance of the president's Supreme Court choice
![]() | |
Mark Wilson / Getty Images |
Slide show |
more photos |
Supreme Court Fact Finder |
Explore related facts (launches window): |
RSS FEEDS ON MSNBC.COM |
Add these headlines to your news reader |
|
In the words of the old Texas cliché, President Bush is the kind of leader, and person, who “dances with the one that brung him.” He is as loyal as a hunting dog. On a personal level, his inner circles stay inner and stay around him forever. It’s the same with politics. He owes “the base” — religious conservatives, corporate conservatives, Federalist Society libertarian conservatives — and he pays.
Doggedness vs. candor
This kind of personality is rare in politics, even rarer in the city of Washington. Bush likes to pull surprises, but only on matters of timing. George Bush hides in plain sight, a tactic that works here, since everyone always assumes the game is all about misdirection. Bush said he wanted to choose justices in the Scalia-Thomas tradition. Why would anyone think that he wouldn’t follow through on that promise?
Doggedness is not necessarily the same thing as candor, by the way. Once Bush decided to go to Iraq — and that may well have been before he was elected — he was going to go there, come hell or high water. He isn’t always forthcoming, shall we say, about the facts and the law that support, or don’t support, the course he’s set. But he’s damn well going to “git ’er done,” to use the parlance of the Cable Guy.
As a matter of political strategy, Roberts was a brilliant pick. Bush chose the most conservative judge he could find who also had a very high probability of Senate confirmation. Let’s use a golf analogy. He didn’t aim for the pin, but he laid it up just short for an easy putt.
I think of Roberts as Luttig Lite. A lot of attention focused in recent months on Judge Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit, who has a similar conservative pedigree and is also known for his jurisprudential brilliance. But Luttig has been on the federal bench for many years and, as a result, has an enormous record of written opinions for liberal foes to dissect. Not Roberts. He’s been on the bench for less than two years and may well have wanted to steer clear of incendiary social issues while he bided his time.
- Discuss Story On Newsvine
-
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh - Instant Message
MORE FROM THE CHANGING COURT |
| Add The Changing Court headlines to your news reader: |
Boost your career with an online Degree. Pick from Leading Colleges!
www.EarnMyDegree.com
Sponsored links
Resource guide





