Roberts Malaise

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Over at Salon, Michael Scherer discusses why all the left-leaning groups that promised to come to fisticuffs over Bush’s Supreme Court Nominee have thus far kept quiet. It seems like Grover Norquist has a pretty good explanation, or at least one that credits the opposition with some strategic thinking: people are saving up their bile (and credibility) for either the September hearings, or else for whomever Bush might nominate next.

But the most important factor may be that John Roberts doesn’t present a lot to throw mud at. Sure, he’s argued the conservative line on abortion and tons of corporate issues, but since he was just fronting for clients the assumption is that those cases don’t really tell us what he thinks. The senior counsel at the liberal Alliance for Justice, which spent all spring gearing up for a fight, runs the numbers on Robert’s brief months on the D.C. Circuit Court:

“As a judge he has sat on 400 cases,” says Shah. “He has only written 44 of those. And only five of them are cases in which one of the judges disagreed.”

Clearly not a lot to go on.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend