I feel reasonably tolerant of the Roberts nomination for the Supreme Court, all things considered. He is probably similar to some conservative legal academics I know, whom I basically trust and consider reasonable even where I might disagree with them on some issues.
But does the New York Times really need to have such breathless, servile, fawning coverage? Here are some of their front page headlines on Roberts over the last two days:
"Court Nominee's Life is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law" [Did the White House write this headline?]
"Bush's Supreme Court Choice Is a Judge Anchored in Modern Law" [I guess it's a good thing Bush didn't name a medievalist]
"An Interview By, Not With, the President" [Golly gee!!]
Even with Judith Miller in jail, the Times doesn't seem to have gotten the hang of this thing called "reporting."