I initially entitled this post "Another day, another whackjob" out of frustration with the media's portrayal of John Roberts as a kind of restrained choice. But then I decided that the term "whackjob" should be reserved for people like Priscilla Owen and John Bolton -- truly flamboyant psychos -- or else it loses its meaning.

But that's not to say Roberts is not radical. Sure, he looks pleasant enough with his telegenic features and plastic Santorum hair, and hasn't made any outlandish pronouncements about Social Security being a socialist program. But he's as hardcore as any of them (Liberal Oasis has a nice rundown). Opposing reproductive freedom and federal pollution controls, and working with Ken Starr makes you NOT a member of the reality-based community. And though he may not seem "extremist," he will likely vote just as an "extremist" would, taking the Court in a direction far removed from the mainstream. As far as I can tell, Roberts doesn't appear to embody a judicial philosophy so much as a corporatist agenda (which the right has so cleverly veiled behind the label "strict interpretation") that is contrary to the public interest. I am at least as worried about Roe as I am about the erosion of the federal government's ability to control pollution. We could be in for decades of industrial anarchy (as if things aren't bad enough already).

Hey, what's going on with the porcine turncoat? I can't find a damn thing about him on the NY Times at the moment. Funny how that issue disappeared all of a sudden.