Readers will be shocked at what I am about to say. I hasten to add that my comments are based on what I read in the press and hear on the news. I am not a legal scholar, and I do not pretend to be one.

Here is the break with traditions of “This Front Porch.” I was pleasantly surprised to have my predictions with regard to President Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court proved wrong.

I had expected him to take a hard-right course. It would have been consistent with his approach to appointments to the federal bench in both terms.

At the beginning of his second term, Mr. Bush made a compelling appeal for bipartisanship that Karl Rove apparently did not hear. He had an opportunity to strike a conciliatory tone with the Senate by abandoning most of the hard-right nominees that had been held up in his first term. He could have deftly appointed moderate conservatives, achieving his goals in large measure while at the same time making it difficult for the Senate not to confirm. It was a missed opportunity at statesmanship, but one that was predictable given his commitment to turning the clock back on privacy, reproductive rights, affirmative action and other established pieces of national law.

So, I fully expected him to stay “on course” and nominate a hard-liner who would have produced a major battle and a potentially significant constitutional crisis. But, it seems, on the surface, at least, that he chose a different path. Kudos to you, George!

Justice John Roberts Jr. would not be my choice. But he has some important things going for him. He is on the record in his earlier confirmation saying that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. He strikes me as an honest man who will not go back on his word. People all along the political spectrum like him as a person and have great respect for his legal mind.

What seems to me to be most important is that he has a reputation for listening. He respects other points of view. He even changes his mind.

Those are important qualities in a judge – particularly one on the Supreme Court. There is a long history of justices with those characteristics evolving over time in unpredictable ways as they mature in their understanding of the judicial process and their understanding of constitutional history.

Note only Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice David Souter as two examples, not to mention Justice Sandra Day O’Connor herself. So there is hope in this appointment.

I get the sense that this man has a good judicial temperament that might even evolve into wisdom. Is that hoping for too much?

On the other hand

Just to assure my readers that “This Front Porch” has not lost touch with reality, I must comment on my favorite personification of all that is wrong with American politics – Karl Rove.

Well, maybe he is the second best personification of that dubious honor, next to Vice President Cheney. We must remember that Karl Rove was a student of Lee Atwater, who was the meanest and nastiest of political consultants. He managed Bush I. He pulled every dirty trick imaginable. He had no equal in the realm of dirty politics. Karl Rove was his avid student. The problem is he dropped out of the Atwater course too early. You will recall that Atwater became very sick with cancer and recanted all that he had done as a dirty trickster. He really tried to move away and separate himself from that behavior. He apologized for it to the nation. Apparently, Rove did not follow his mentor in that important step. He remains fully engaged in the world of dirty politics.

Karl Rove should be fired today. His role is the Wilson-Plame CIA leak matter over the Niger investigation is reprehensible. He “outed” an undercover agent in the CIA in order to play political payback. One does not risk the nation’s security simply to gain a political point against an opponent. That is a line that I doubt Atwater would have crossed. It does not matter that Rove did not mention Ms. Wilson’s name. He clearly identified her in spite of the fact that the memo that conveyed the information was labeled secret. He violated the law. Worse, his action could be considered treasonous, and you can bet that if a Democrat had done the same thing there would have calls for impeachment if the president did not fire him.

In fact, I think the Democrats are being far too quiet on this issue. They ought to be striking hard. The evidence of small-minded wrong approaching the level of treason seems quite strong.

Rove’s action is entirely consistent with the “ill wind” and mean-spiritedness that has emanated from the White House during this administration. He is the culprit, along with able support from the vice president and his staff.

So, the same kind of thinking that produced Judge Roberts should come into play now and lead to the firing of Rove. The question is, does the president have the guts and wisdom to do it?

I doubt it, unless the heat on this issue is raised significantly.

Engagement

I spent the better part of the other day in my role as co-chair of the Task Force on Civic Education trying to develop programs that will encourage young people to engage in their communities and in the political life of the nation.

The statistics on disengagement represent a major challenge to the future of democracy in this nation. I could not help but wonder if whatever we might come up with in the task force will inevitably be overshadowed by the likes of Rove’s antics.

They are a huge turn-off to the young, and one can understand why. It is hard to answer the question, “Why should I become involved in a system riddled with the antics of a man like Karl Rove?”

Somehow, the encouragement to engage and displace those of his ilk does not ring true for our young.

President Bush should follow up on the nomination of Roberts by firing Rove. He will do the nation a significant service and even have another “Front Porch” that says something good about him

Jim Carignan is a retired educator who lives in Harpswell. His e-mail address is [email protected]..