John Roberts' Smoking Gun

Once again, the Republican obfuscation machine is running as smoothly as ever. By rushing up the schedule for nominating Roberts, they have taken the criminal antics of King Karl off the front pages. But more importantly, they have framed the issue of Roberts' qualifications in the best light while ignoring the dark side which screams for investigation.
The big issue about Roberts background that is being discussed is his work for the Solicitor General. There is talk about seeing his work papers, especially as they relate to a brief he signed urging that Roe v Wade be overturned. What a smokescreen! The work that he did while working for that paragon of fairness, Solicitor General Ken Starr, was as an attorney... an advocate. He was simply parrotting the openly held position of the mullahs who ran the legal department for the adult Bush that Roe should be overturned. That was his job. His personal opinion on Roe in that situation is not an issue. Would he vote to overturn? We don't know and quite frankly we shouldn't know. Judges should be chosen for their abilities as interpreters of the law, not for their personal opinions. For all we know, Roberts may come onto the Court and render any discussion of overruling Roe v Wade moot by holding a remedial basic law class for Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist in which he explains the principle of stare decisis. The process of picking a judge should be to pick a qualified person (you know, Bush, it's ok to pick a woman; a country that's 50% women should be represented on the Court by more that 11%) that is fair and judicious. Someone who does not let his partisan feelings interfere with the rule of law. Does John Roberts pass that test? The issue that no one is talking about is that Roberts voluntarily went to Florida in November, 2000 to advise the Republicans in their attempt to quash any investistigation of how Jeb's minions counted the votes. He wasn't an attorney representing his client here. Hell, he paid his own way to Florida and just showed up. Is volunteering to disenfranchise voters a judicious act? Does it show the type of temperment that a judge needs? Isn't this what should be investigated and what any hearings should concentrate on?