Can’t find anything on the nominee?

Mrs. Roberts and kidsWell then just go after his wife and kids.

Yesterday, the LA Times wrote this little alarmist piece about Jane Sullivan Roberts, wife of USSC nominee Judge John Roberts. Note the headline: Wife of Nominee Holds Strong Antiabortion Views.

Gasp! Well, that’s interesting to know but … what about her husband, you know, the actual nominee? The article went on to say:

While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.

A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization β€” Feminists for Life of America β€” that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.

The reason for this ‘concern’ over her views? The LATimes sums it up neatly for us:

A spouse’s views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone’s job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts’ nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife’s views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Oh, so THAT’S it! We don’t want to wait to find out what HIS position is, we want to guess that because his wife holds the anti-abortion position, well then he certainly must, too. The LATimes apparently couldn’t wait for his confirmation hearings to start, so they ‘scooped’ the hearings with a ‘scoop’ of their own – about his wife’s views. Nice.

Moving right along, not only are Mrs. Roberts’ views under scrutiny now, but apparently her fashion sense is as it relates to her and her children. From the Style section of today’s Washington Post in an article by Robin Givhan:

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were — John, Jane, Josie and Jack — standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers. There was tow-headed Jack — having freed himself from the controlling grip of his mother — enjoying a moment in the spotlight dressed in a seersucker suit with short pants and saddle shoes. His sister, Josie, was half-hidden behind her mother’s skirt. Her blond pageboy glistened. And she was wearing a yellow dress with a crisp white collar, lace-trimmed anklets and black patent-leather Mary Janes.

(Who among us did a double take? Two cute blond children with a boyish-looking father getting ready to take the lectern — Jack Edwards? Emma Claire? Is that you? Are all little boys now named Jack?)

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings “to you and yours” from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape.

Wonderful, eh? It’s apparently all about the ‘image’ you project – if you dress 1950’s style, your views (and therefore your husband’s as well) must also reflect a 50s (regressive?) attitude. If you dress your kids in Gap clothes, why you just might be a bit more on the ‘progressive’ side! For shame that Mrs. Robert’s didn’t have the foresight to shop at Gap Kids before she and her husband and kids travelled to Washington, DC for the historic honor of watching Judge Roberts as he gets nominated to the highest court in the land by the President of the United States! Furthermore, the fact that she apparently doesn’t see it necesesary to consult Sak’s Fifth Avenue on her choice of appropriate WH attire shows that she, Mrs. Roberts, must be a throwback to an era in US history where women took a more ‘subservient’ role to their male masters!

(In case you’re new to this blog and don’t know my personality well yet, that last paragraph was pure sarcasm).

Surely the Washington Post style editors have something better to do than to criticize Mrs. Roberts’ choice in clothes not only for herself, but for her children as well?

Surely the LATimes could have waited to find out what Judge Roberts views actually were instead of launching a hit piece on what his wife’s abortion views were?

Apparently common decency is just too much to ask for out of the MSM these days.

(Hat tip to Captain Ed and Michelle Malkin -who has posted some contact info for the Washington Post to complain about this if you’re interested.)

Mid-afternoon update: Southern Appeal comments about this and other Roberts-related issues.

Evening addition: Jeff Goldstein has a pic of the style queen herself.

Comments are closed.