I am on a mailing list of people supporting Sen. Evan Bayh for President in 2008. Yes, I know that it is early in the process and I am not supporting anyone yet, just trying to get information.

On the mailing list, there has been a discussion about Sen. Bayh's decision to vote against Roberts to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Here is my response:

When Judge Roberts testified before the Judiciary committee, he compared the role of a judge, or a supreme court justice to that of an umpire. He must determine the merits of each case according to the rule of law, just as an umpire must call each ball and strike according to how he sees things.

The role of the Senate then, must be like the role of Major League Baseball in checking out to see if the proposed umpire will be able to see things clearly. Does the umpire have some myopia or other eye problem that makes inhibits the ability of the umpire to see clearly? Does the umpire have a tendency to stand too far to the right or too far to the left behind the plate to be able to see the play clearly?

The same applies to judges. Is there some sort of ideological perspective that makes the judge less able to view a case clearly. Ideologues from the left claim there is. Perhaps their vision is obscurred. Ideologues from the right claim there is not. Perhaps their vision is obscurred.

Unfortunately, the information that was necessary to make such an important decision was not provided. It could have been provided and wasn't, which further raises questions in the minds of many. Senator Bayh was very wise in voting, "No, we do not have enough information." It is too bad that Judge Roberts was not more forth coming. He had an opportunity to win the hearts and minds of more of America and failed. I hope he does not fail as our Chief Justice.