Your piece is very good on the point of moderation. We are invariably in short supply of this cardinal virtue.

Professor K,

I’m as surprised as you that AJC published it - but glad they did. Good point, one that I’m trying to make clear to my students. Never make the perfect the enemy of the good. We had an interesting conversation in my sections yesterday, about, as one student called it, Roberts "stonewalling." "He’s a candidate, shouldn’t he say what he thinks?" Well, that’s a good question, is he really a candidate? Is it really his job to "tell all." Would that be a good thing?

Caleb

Caleb,

Of course you know how to answer that question. He’s not a candidate, but rather a nominee. As a judge, he should have no thought that cannot be grounded in the Constitution. His policy preferences, whatever they are, are irrelevant, so long as he accepts the discipline he claims to accept. And if he doesn’t accept that discipline, he should seek to become a legislator, rather than a judge.

Roberts properly insists that judges decide concrete cases and controversies. To say more than he has said is to "prejudge," which would be to render himself unfit as a nominee. He, thankfully, hasn’t done so.

Please tell Mr. Ceaser that I’m enjoying Red Over Blue quite a lot.