The Washington Post recently discovered that John Roberts has been seen reading dangerous books such as Plato's Republic, the Federalist Papers, and The Wealth of the Nations.

In an article in the Washington Post on the proposed appointment of a new member of the US Supreme Court, the usual 'witch-hunt' is on. This year the victim is John Roberts, Jr., and the aim is to find reasons why he should not be appointed. Some years back the victim was a nominee from a Democratic President — the worst they came up with was his alleged habit of 'making passes' at women.

In the Washington Post we find that the most serious charge against the nominee is that he read certain books and discussed them with others while a recently graduated law student in a lowly job in the West Wing of the White House. They couldn't script it better for the fictional West Wing of 'President' Bartlett — perhaps, it could feature in an episode of the sixth series?

Not wishing to intrude on the internal affairs of another democracy, I am compelled to make a comment because one of the heinous books the young Roberts read and discussed with others (he could hardly discuss it with himself) was Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

How this amounts to evidence of his unsuitability for the US Supreme Court is not stated, but it does not have to be because the writers — and no doubt Post readers — will have insufficient knowledge of Smith's Wealth of Nations to draw the conclusion that reading it is proof positive of a proclivity, not for 'truck, barter and exchange,' but for extremist rightwing judgments against all things decent in America.

The Washington Post reports, in "A Charter Member of Reagan Vanguard Court Nominee was Part of Legal Team Seeking to Shift Court on Civil Rights Laws:"

Many, like Roberts, had attended premier law schools, surrounded by liberal students and professors. Now, they were side by side with people who shared their own views. They read and discussed books such as Plato's Republic, the Federalist Papers and Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, and contemplated "how to leave a legacy that goes beyond passing this bill or that," Fein said.

Bruce Fein, the informant, was an associate deputy attorney general at the time — it is not reported what books, if any, Fein read and discussed.

As for Plato's Republic (surely read and discussed at any Law School?) and the Federalist Papers (surely mandatory reading among young people seeking careers in US government, the courts and politics?), the mind boggles as to what sinister meaning can be attributed to their private behavior in the West Wing. I consider it a sign of their diligence as young lawyers working for senior counsel in the White House that they spent social time discussing such texts. That it was President Reagan's team they worked for is another attempted slur on Roberts' guilt by association.

All in all it is a disappointing piece, sloppily compiled.  Was Fein questioned as to what interpretation he put on Roberts reading Wealth of Nations, a book written by someone passionately dedicated to liberty, good government and opulent free market economies?

Adam Smith was well qualified in jurisprudence.  He received his law doctorate in 1763 for his work at the University of Glasgow, 1752-1764, on the history of jurisprudence and he was an admirer of the American constitution (the subject of the Federalist Papers). He had studied Plato at Oxford University and no doubt discussed his works and other classics in his many private conversations (Plato features strongly in his Moral Sentiments, 1759).

Shame on Bruce Fein, the reporters and the editor of the Washington Post.