Nominee's past not comforting

I recently read an article in The Spokesman pronouncing the "relief" of the various political parties, but in particular those more progressive or liberal in their philosophies and persuasions, in reaction to Bush Jr.'s nominee, John Roberts, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor for the Supreme Court ("Open minds key for court justices," July 22).

This article must have written in an attempt to propagate the usual "official" spin. How else could you explain such an inaccurate pronouncement form our come-of-age Orwellian media?

Anyone who has followed politics for much of their lives can tell you as a political appointee in the Reagan and George senior's administrations, Roberts worked to derail school desegration efforts, restrict the reproductive rights of women, limit environmental protections and weaken church-state separation - oh yeah, and to weaken the voting rights of African Americans.

But, hey, other than that, I for one feel great relief at the prospect of such a "fair and balanced" (you know, like Fox news) political appointee teking the bench. I'll sleep much sounder as a result! How about you?

Thomas Davis Keenan

Couer d'Alene, Id

The Spokesman Review