Senate should get it on

I wish that people immediately thought about sex when they heard my name, but I guess I'm not as lucky as John Roberts. When you're the man who has the power to potentially vote against Roe v. Wade, you're going to put sex on a lot of people's minds.\nRoberts is also more handsome than I am.\nWe all know that adding conservative judges to the court is the first step toward overturning Roe v. Wade. It's been a popular topic with the sex-obsessed religious right for years.\nThe problem with the current dialogue about Roberts and abortion, however, is that it is as generic as a script to a bad porn flick: A liberal activist says he's against civil rights, and would vote to overturn the case that legalized abortion; then a conservative says he's a good man; and then they get it on.\nWe'd be using the same script for any nomination Bush would have made to the Supreme Court. However, for the most part, many of the claims made about Roberts are unfounded.\nMoveOn.org is already mobilizing against Roberts, partially because he wrote in 1990 that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. However, an article in the July 23 Economist points out that Roberts wrote this while he was working as an advocate, not as a judge. He was paid by a client to argue against Roe v. Wade, and what Roberts wrote does not necessarily reflect his opinion.\nIn the meantime, it is the Senate's job to figure out just what Roberts' opinions are. They've requested thousands of pages of records from Roberts' career, and the right thing is for everyone in the Senate to examine them.\nIf the Democrats do not approve of Roberts, there is no way they would win out in a party-line vote. The Republicans have them outnumbered. The only option the Dems have would be a filibuster, a right which the GOP is pushing to eliminate.\nThe GOP has a reputation for supporting the President's agenda in congress. Since they're the majority, they've helped Bush push a lot of things through. However, congress is supposed to be a check on the President's power. If they blindly follow Bush wherever he goes, there is no point in even having a congress.\nInstead of Dems talking about a filibuster, the right thing is for Senate Republicans to scour Roberts' records just as thoroughly as their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.\nAn appointment to the Supreme Court lasts for life, and Roberts is 50 years old now; he'll be there for decades. And let's face it: he may just make that decision that tells Americans how or how not to get it on.\nI'm not arguing whether it's the right or wrong thing to approve Roberts; I don't have any solid evidence of what his views are. What I am saying is that if Senate Republicans don't examine solid evidence as thoroughly as the Dems are surely going to, they might as well write a Constitutional amendment to accompany the flag-burning amendment: one that dissolves a useless Congress.