The nomination of Judge John Roberts Jr. can be summed up in one word: abortion. The only question necessary to the letter writers, as well as guest columnists, rallying against Roberts in the Sun Journal is this: Would any of these complaints or arguments about supposed lack of experience and qualifications be applicable if Mr. Roberts were stridently pro-choice? The answer is a resounding no.

These are the same people who were against the nominee before the nominee even had a name. We should remember that Roberts was approved to the second-highest court in the land. The Democrats let him through the filibuster gantlet, which means that he must not be a right-wing extremist.

Let’s face it, for some people, no Bush appointment will be qualified or acceptable, as Bush is highly unlikely to put forth a pro-choice nominee.

Also remember, as Democrats cry that Roberts is not answering questions, that nominees are not allowed to answer all questions they are asked, as it would disqualify them from future cases. This is called the “Ginsburg standard.” In his opening statements, Sen. Feingold said that nominees could answer all questions that they are asked. That is not true. Justice Scalia was forced to recuse himself from a case for speaking out about the Pledge of Allegiance.

Let’s drop the pretext and be honest. The pathetic arguments are not fooling anyone.

Frank Phillips, Auburn