What's That I Smell?

Is it just me, or does it seem wholly inappropriate to place a person with barely two years of experience as a judge at any level into the most powerful judicial position in the land? Political leanings, past cases and litmus tests aside, how can we be serious about the importance of the position of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court when we're apparently willing to let a judicial neophyte assume that role? Shouldn't the Chief Justice have at least a modicum of experience ruling from the bench?

John Roberts, originally nominated by President Bush to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. Now that Chief Justice Rehnquist has died, Bush has altered his earlier nomination of Roberts by recommending him as Rehnquist's replacement as Chief Justice. However, I'd like to believe that our Supreme Court Chief Justice should have more than merely TWO years of experience on the bench. It's like putting in a third grader at quarterback for the New England Patriots and expecting him to lead them to the Super Bowl. It's a stretch. Okay, it's downright nuts!

Then again, a lack of experience seems to be the Bush administration's calling card for entrance into its inner sanctum of leadership. After all, Dubya hadn't done squat before being "elected" President in 2000. And we've all seen the great job done in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by erstwhile horseman Michael Brown, aka FEMA Director. This guy should be shoveling horse manure somewhere instead of heading up a critical emergency management organization.

Unfortunately, the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice seems to be more of the same manure this administration has been shoveling at the American people for the last five years. Why should it stop now? Sadly, the smell eminating from the White House never seems to get any better.