For weeks I've stayed away from the question of John Roberts' suitability as Supreme Court Justice, now Chief Justice. But having watched and listened to a few hours of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee (and having all the while squirmed and moaned at the ineptness of the questioning by the "liberals") I have concluded as follows:
1. Roberts is a skilled advocate of legal positions, and has brought those skills to the hearing room to support his own nomination. He argues positions very well.
2. He has no soul. This is apparent not only from his demeanor and the content of his "answers" but from his record as well. As to the latter, consider this analysis by a long-time Washington lawyer, a Georgetown Law teacher who litigated civil rights cases for years.
So, do I think he should be a Supreme? No, because it's a job for a human being, not a robot. And, if you look carefully at John Roberts, don't you get a kind of Stepford-wives feeling, like there's nobody there? So maybe we should dub him John Robot?