The Los Angeles Times must have taken its coverage about the lack of controversy attached to SCOTUS nominee John Roberts to heart. Instead of reporting further on Roberts, the LAT decided to go after his wife's pro-life beliefs instead:

While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.

A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."

I expected this, but nevertheless it's pretty appalling. Take a look at the language used in these paragraphs. It's unclear how this will affect her husband. It's possible that he will think for himself, rather than give in to his wife and fail to rule in an independent manner. Perhaps she won't put her hand up his back and operate him as a hand puppet. And let's not forget to mention her religious affiliation, and his, to complete the picture.

Well, Roberts has sat on the bench for two years and practiced law for twenty-five more. Why not just check his record? And does the Los Angeles Times plan on highlighting the religious affiliation of all executive nominations, or are Roman Catholics the only people blessed with this kind of scrutiny? Unless Catholics have become ineligible for public service, all this does is to underscore a belief that Catholics cannot act as independent jurists.

If Roberts decided to highlight his wife's career as a reason to confirm him, then I would understand why Jane Roberts and her beliefs would get scrutinized. Hillary Clinton came in for similar criticism, but her husband hailed them as a team, with the famous "two for the price of one" slogan that turned out to haunt them as her more radical views became public. However, nothing points to Roberts or the White House making Jane Roberts an argument for his confirmation, and the fact that she has her own political viewpoint doesn't make it germane to his confirmation.

The Los Angeles Times should find this kind of attack piece embarrassing. Unfortunately, it won't.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nothing On Roberts? Go For The Wife:

» Cooper’s kids are alright. Are Rove’s? from The Anchoress
In analyzing why, in the 2004 election, all the media interest in President Bush’s Air National Guard service seemed to make no difference, the Washington Post’s TV critic, Tom Shales wrote: “It’s common knowledge that Bush w... [Read More]

Tracked on July 21, 2005 5:21 PM

» Bishop of Yesterday Morning from NIF
Today's dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny ... It's Stop the ACLU Thursday (and one day closer to Friday) [Read More]

Tracked on July 21, 2005 5:41 PM

» Pillow Talk from Bookworm Room
If you can't say anything bad about somebody, be sure to invoke his hitherto private-citizen wife. The LA Times' big scoop is that Mrs. Roberts, a lawyer herself, is affiliated with a pro-Life organization. Has it really come to this? That we're goin... [Read More]

Tracked on July 21, 2005 6:28 PM

» Yes, Judge Roberts Eats Eggs Benedict from Hard Starboard
This would be Feminists for Life, of which Mrs. Roberts was Executive Vice President. A fact which the Los Angeles Times, for some strange reason, found endlessly fascinating (via CQ): While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on a... [Read More]

Tracked on July 22, 2005 2:02 AM

» SCOTUS Watch: Borking John Robert’s Wife Continues from FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
The Los Angeles Times has this piece this morning, Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views. While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaki... [Read More]

Tracked on July 22, 2005 6:26 PM