News reports are already playing up the "demeanor" of John Roberts as a selling point. But isn't this a silly way to judge a person in politics? George W. Bush's 2000 campaign was largely based on how his demeanor was different than conservatives like Newt Gingrich, and it fooled a lot of people into thinking he was a moderate. We can only judge a politician or a judicial nominee based on what they have said and done in the past. Whether they have a friendly demeanor or a "good heart" is irrelevant.
Hear hear.
At least with politicians, smooth demeanor is a job-related asset. Part of diplomacy.
Judges should be judged on their judging. I imagine an orchestra-audition-style senate meeting where interrogators can ask tough questions to a curtain and then wait for replies from the printer at the podium.
Imagine the gasps when the curtain rises on the confirmed nominee: S/he's---(gasp)---ugly/obese/short/handicapped/unkempt/ill-mannered/etc./etc.
Posted by: brent | July 20, 2005 at 09:05 AM
ugh. i heard this first on npr last night, and nina totenberg, who i used to adore, gushed about the "nice man."
blech. gimme a jerk who respects my civil liberties any day.
Posted by: jami | July 20, 2005 at 07:34 PM