Editorial: Who decided Roberts could play leap frog on the Court?

Last Monday the hearings on John Roberts Jr. nomination to the Supreme Court were supposed to start. They were postponed. Now they are due to start tomorrow. In a week's time, Roberts' nomination has shifted. He's no longer just nominated to the Court, he's now nominated as Chief Justice.

Only in a Bully Boy world could someone who's never served on the Court be considered worthy of not only serving but also presiding over the Court. That's the kind of thinking that puts roommates and pals and campaign workers into public posts and we've seen the damage that can do.

Now the press has taken a pass on Roberts from day one. They're eager to see the boy get confirmed. So we aren't surprised that in the last week little was made of the fact that there's a world of difference between the federal courts and the Supreme Court.

But we'll ask the questions they won't? (Seems to be the function of our editorials.)

Are you telling us that of the seven justices currently sitting, and planning to continue sitting on the bench (we're leaving out the eighth who's announced her retirement), that there's not one, with their years of experience, who's actually qualified to be Chief Justice?

Are you saying that Bully Boy's boy, who's never served on the Court, has something that trumps all of them?

In a country that preaches the hard work ethic, it's hard to reconcile that notion with the idea that Roberts is going to play leap frog over the backs of seven sitting Justices.

We would assume that a new Justice would need time just to assimilate and grasp the workings involved in the Highest Court of the land. Instead of getting his toe wet, he's diving straight into the deep end. Well, a swimmer can do whatever they choose with their own lives and fate. But we're talking about a Court that is the final say in matters across the nation.

Exactly how does someone who's never served on the Court qualify to be elevated to Chief Justice?

Volunteering on Bully Boy's legal squad in 2000 appears to be one qualification. That's a qualification that's resulted in many appointments. On most of those appointments, the press failed to examine the resumes of the appointees. Case in point, Michael "Brownie" Brown. Thomas & Scalia (and the rest of the Gang of Four that's not retiring -- Gang of Five until Rehnquist's death), you just got served.

You're "good," just not good enough to be Chief Justice in the eyes of the Bully Boy. Put it another way, you're Irish-Americans trying to fit into the Italian mob. You'll never be a "made man." Put that in your Constitutional shredder and smoke it.

It's as though Roberts showed up to work the line at McDonalds and got put in charge of the franchise.

Something doesn't add up. But the press doesn't want to touch on it. They want to act as though it's perfectly natural for a man who was just a nominee to the Court a week ago to suddenly be in line to become Chief Justice.

We're hoping that the Democrats have some strategy here. Honestly, we've got more faith in Ted Kennedy than in any of the others. We're praying that lion will roar and drive home the questions to Roberts nominations.

But will anyone ask the neophyte would-be lifetime Chief Justice exactly what qualifies his starting at the top? Or will we continue to remain mute in this up-is-down Bully Boy world?

[Note: This editorial was written by Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review', Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Mike of Mikey Likes It!, and C.I. of both The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review.]