You’re a lawyer (the card-carrying ACLU kind) and a progressive…

Yes.  What’s your question?

So why aren’t you writing about the Roberts confirmation hearings?

Quite simply, it’s a non-event.   Roberts is qualified to sit on the bench.  That’s all there is to it.  End of story. 

Do you like his apparent political views?   

No.

Don’t you think his political views will influence his judicial decision-making? 

I don’t know.  Nobody knows.  His judicial record simply lacks sufficient data points to reach any conclusions.

What about his work as a lawyer?

What about it?

Doesn’t it say something about his judicial philosophy?

No.  As lawyers often say, "You take the client that comes in the door".

Aren’t you concerned about Roe v. Wade being overturned?

Roberts alone cannot overturn Roe v Wade.

Don’t the confirmation hearings matter at all? 

Not really.  We’re only exchanging Rehnquist for Roberts.  So it’s zero-sum gain/loss. 

Besides, as I (and many others) have said before, the battle to preserve the court was lost in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Shouldn’t we fight the nomination anyway?  I mean, are we just spineless liberals here?

Fighting an already-lost battle for cosmetic reasons is pretty pointless.  We should put our energies in other issues (or future SCOTUS nominees) that are truly offensive.

What if it comes out in the hearings that Roberts screws goats?

Find me and wake me up.

But other than that, you have no reason to write about the confirmation hearings?

Correct.

Well, then — how do explain this post?

Go away now.