Godless Mom in the Bible Belt

I'm convinced that there were some seriously shady deeds taking place during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. I truly don't think that Bush legitimatly won either election. But that is not the debate for today. I merely mention my stand on this to provide some background for today's post.

A few months ago I rented the documentary Unprecidented, the 2000 Presidential Election. Scott and I were watching it when Scott noticed during a scene where the filmakers were discussing the fiasco recount process, that John Bolton was sitting in the background as a representative for Bush. Now John Bolton is kind of hard to miss. Milk White mustache and steel grey hair (rug), you don't see many people who look like that. So this got me to thinking, is Bush indebted to Bolton for something owing to that recount? Is the nomination of Bolton for UN ambassador a repayment of sorts?

And then yesterday I found this article in the Miami Herald (or you can read it here on Commondreams.org) regarding the new Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and the assistance he provided to team Bush in Florida during the 2000 election. Again my brain started going down the same path. Is this nomination to the Supreme Court a payback for services rendered during the 2000 election recount?

Now, I don't expect Bush to nominate someone I'd actually like and I certainly don't expect all judges to be without political opinions. I acknowledge that the law of our land permits Bush to make these choices on behalf of all of us and I can always hope that he would choose wisely. But with all the talk coming from conservatives about "activist judges" I have to wonder if the label only applies when the judge disagrees with the Right? Now, I would imagine that Roberts is a very ambitious man, anyone who makes it all the way to the Supreme Court would have to be. I would also expect that he was merely offering his opinions to the Bush administration during the election in order to draw attention to himself and further his own career. However, he willingly on his own dime, advised and sided with one political candidate over another during a period of extreme division. He wasn't defending our Constitution and the law of the land, he was defending and furthering the interests of the Republican party. Doesn't this qualify as activism? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging on the man, I don't know enough about him yet to form an opinion one way or another. This article just set off the alarm bells in my head.

I'll be away from the computer for the weekend, enjoy!