Vetting Supreme Court Nominees

I've been reading John Dean's Rehnquist Choice (2002) in my spare time, and I'll offer this observation on the John Roberts nomination. From Dean's account, it's clear that Nixon settled on Rehnquist late in the process, only a matter of hours before the nomination was announced. Nixon seized on Rehnquist after other options had fallen through; he needed someone with great credentials, and Rehnquist was the man. But, as a result, the current Chief was not thoroughly vetted back in 1971. This did not stop his nomination, despite things in the record that might have caused problems, like the [credible] allegations of his challenging black voters at the polls, 1958-68, and the infamous Brown v. Board memo that Rehnquist wrote as a Supreme Court clerk in 1952 that allegedly included, ahem, Justice Jackson's view that Plessy should be affirmed. But that's another story. (Although Dean's take on that story is interesting.)

My point here is that the Roberts papers probably include similar choice nuggets. I don't think (it doesn't seem to me) that this nomination was thoroughly vetted; it seems to me that the administration and president seized on Roberts in a bad week for them. The thinking: he is eminently qualified, so put him out there, change the subject from the Rove-Plame grand jury . . . don't worry about those memos . . . what could be in there, anyway? Really?

It's strange that the past repeats itself. Roberts will almost certainly be confirmed. Maybe he'll be nominated to be Chief some day. And then we'll be talking about . . . whatever comes out in the next few weeks, perhaps.