Scrambling

Well, those who outed themselves as partisan fools by voting against Roberts’ confirmation are scrambling to find a good excuse for voting against the man who could easily become one of the best Chief Justices in a long, long time… and that’s aside from the two obvious reasons of “Well, duh, BUSHitler appointed him, so he must be evil!” and “He actually wants us to follow the law instead of writing it himself!!”

One of the sillier reasons I’ve seen is from Harry Reid:

No one could question his legal brilliance. But the fact is, he’s never taken a deposition, never voir dired a jury, never argued a case to a jury. I think that that’s not what I personally am looking for in someone going to the Supreme Court.

Now, I’ve never been a Supreme Court Justice… but I have a hard time figuring out when, exactly, our Justices argue to, or really have anything to do with, juries. I was under the impression that they don’t interact with juries at all, except in the rare cases where they’re evaluating a jury’s finding of fact… and even that’s quite a bit removed.

Silly Democrats.