Talk About A Prophetic First Day on the Job:
As you know, John Roberts has been nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the U.S. Supreme Court. What you might not know is how John Roberts spent his first day of his first job following his clerkship with now-Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The year was 1981, and Roberts was a 26 year-old Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith.

  How did Roberts spend his first day at the Justice Department? According to a very interesting story in tomorrow's New York Times, he spent the day helping Sandra Day O'Connor prepare for her confirmation hearings:
  In a memorandum [filed at the time], Judge Roberts noted that he had spent his first day at the Justice Department helping Sandra Day O'Connor prepare for her confirmation hearings. In a line that will perhaps resonate as his own Supreme Court confirmation hearings draw near, he wrote: "The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments."
Bill Dyer (mail) (www):
Almost makes one believe in karmic destiny, eh?
7.27.2005 3:16am
Matt Barr (mail) (www):
You don't suppose anyone is going to clip that and say Roberts counseled "avoid[ing] giving specific responses," do you? Nahh.
7.27.2005 9:04am
carpundit (www):
That sounds like exactly what I want to hear from a nominee; it is good advice. I'm sure the Democrats will try to make something out of it, but they've already lost. BTW, the NYT seems to be going pretty easy on Judge Roberts. I wonder why.
7.27.2005 10:13am
theDA (mail):
NY Times Headline: Justice Roberts counsels O'Connor to lie.

7.27.2005 10:25am
JohnO (mail):
I assume that the NYT is going easy on Roberts because they recognize (as do most of the Democrats in the Senate) that this is not the guy to go to the mat against, at least not based on what is now known. Instead, they'll beat him up a little to show that they can't be walked over, and then not get in the way. This leaves open the ability to say credibly the next time around that the Dems (and the media) won't stand in the way of a mainstream conservative but that the next nominee (whomever that might be) is an extremist.
7.27.2005 11:06am
StellarOne (mail):
I am wondering what John Roberts thinks about Bill and Hillary Clinton's chinagate treason; ie. Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, John Huang along with James and Mochtar Raidy...not to mention Bernard Schwartz of Loral? (many might think that chinagate is "old news" and wasn't that important; but there are the few of us who fully understand that after Clinton's disasterous Presidency...all of our nuclear secrets [with emphasis on "all"] went to Communist China)

I'd venture to say that 99+ percent of all Americans have never read United State Senator James Inhofe's Senate Floor speech from June 23, 1999: "The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup."
(for those who are curious about this particular Inhofe's on the top right hand cornor of our U S Congressional Record for the date of: June 23, 1999 / imperative for all who have not reviewed this devastating do so)
8.1.2005 12:00am