Three things I like about Judge John Roberts

I was very concerned about whom Dubya was going to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the spot of O'Connor. I thought it was going to be his favorite little sycophant, Alberto Gonzales, and was very gratefully surprised when I was wrong.

As an aside, I don't remember where I read the description of Gonzales as a mediocre lawyer. Couldn't agree more.

Roberts is not my first choice as the next justice. I am sure I will disagree with some of his opinions over the coming decades. But the Democrats lost the presidential election, and they are a distinct minority in the Senate -- that means they don't get to choose. With that in mind, there are three things I do like about Roberts:

1. He's actually practiced law in private practice in the near-distant past. I don't care if it was as an appellate lawyer in a big D.C. firm, or a small firm anywhere else, or anything. But significant, real-world practice -- where a client is paying legal bills or your client might go to jail if you lose -- is my most important criterium in deciding whether or not somebody is qualified. To the contrary, being a full-time professor is the worst type of experience you can have, in my opinion, for the job.
   
2. From the descriptions I've read, he is predicted to look at every case without preconceived theories of who should win. Which I hope means he isn't wedded to any particular ideology that dictates results.
   
3. He's got two adopted kids (and one of them is named Jack). I think that speaks volumes of his nice-guy character.

I pulled up the Supreme Court's official bios on the current justices. I wanted to know which ones had the real-world private practice experience I think is important. Here's what I found out:

• Rehnquist practiced in Phoenix from 1953 to 1969. That's great, but it doesn't fit the bill for "not-too distant" experience. I guess it just means he's really old.
  
• Stevens' bio doesn't list what he did from 1955 to 1970, but does note he was Second V.P. of the Chicago Bar Ass'n in 1970. Who knows what that means. But it certainly was a long time ago as well.
  
• O'Connor was in private practice for only two listed years, from 1958 to 1960, in Maryvale Arizona. Yikes.
• Scalia was in practice from 1961 to 1967, which is good. But he was a professor from 1967 until 1982 (not counting several temporary political stints), so that overrides any good he got from actual work.
  
• Kennedy practiced from 1961 to 1965, although he claims private practice to 1975 while he was also a professor. I can't tell what that means so I'll give him a break.
  
• Souter was an associate in New Hampshire from 1966 to 1968, although he has many years as an attorney general. Being an A.G. is pretty damn good experience, from what I can tell.
  
• Thomas was an assistant A.G. from 1974 to 1977 and in-house lawyer from 1977 to 1979.
  
• Ginsburg was the ACLU's general counsel from 1973 to 1980.
• Beyer never practiced privately. Law clerk, special assistant prosecutor, government lawyer stuff only.

All of which means, by the way, that my least credentialed justices on my little scale are O'Connor, Souter, Thomas, and Beyer.

b.