Jane Roberts’political connections may pose conflict of interest

The confirmation hearings are over, the votes are in, and the oath of office has been taken – John Roberts is the 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But there is one question I think senators should have followed up on: Mr. Roberts, how does your wife's activities and beliefs affect your own?

Though even Democrat senators, such as Edward Kennedy, have placed Jane Roberts' life "out of bounds," the impact of politically active spouses in Washington is becoming increasingly noticeable.

Certainly, Washington spouses are entitled to their own careers, but when do their marriages create conflicts of interest the public should know about?

Even if Jane Roberts will not be the once deciding cases of constitutionality, questions regarding conflicts of interest should have been explored more deeply. What impact can we expect Jane Roberts to have on her husband's choices?

In the case of Jane Roberts, the fortunate answer is "probably none," since her and her husband's beliefs were similar both before and after marriage. Both were devout Roman Catholics with strong anti-abortion tendencies.

John Roberts stated that he distinguishes between his personal and professional beliefs, and we have a long history of his written opinions showing his ability to see both sides of an argument.

But does the general public know about Jane Roberts' work for such groups as Feminists for Life? What influence might Jane Roberts' law firm, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, have on the Chief Justice?

Instead of wasting everyone's time asking him about his favorite movies, the Senate should have questioned him about the factors that might affect his rulings.

For example, in the 2000 election, Clarence Thomas refused to recuse himself in the historic Bush v. Gore case. Though is wife was working for a research group gathering resumes for appointments in a Bush presidency, he stated that it would have no effect on his decision, and that there was no conflict of interest.

He then ruled in favor of Bush, leading to the 5-4 judgment that gave Bush the presidency. Had he recused himself, the 4-4 split decision would have let stand the Florida Supreme Court decision to allow a manual recount of the votes.

Beyond conflicts of interest, one has to wonder how far the webs of influence extend. In the prelude to the Iraq War, it was Ambassador Joseph Wilson's CIA-employed wife who recommended that he be sent to investigate President Bush's yellowcake uranium documents.

Robert Novak subsequently named her as a nonofficial cover operative, or "NOC" in a July 2003 column. Whether the action was accidental or a deliberate action to indirectly punish Wilson is still under investigation, but it shows how even retaliation can be circumspect.

Though the Chief Justice's record in respectable, more attention needs to be focused on these underlying influences on our public officials. In a city where connections are paramount, can we honestly expect the political life of a spouse to end on the drive home?