Thursday shocker: I agree with Willamette Week!

From this week's issue, which lists its endorsements, we have the surprise of the week: a completely reasonable and reasoned endorsement of Jack Roberts for the state supreme court. Why? Because regardless of gender balance, the court already has plenty of people like Virginia Linder, and no one who provides the different perspective that Roberts would add (all emphasis and ellipses mine):

The rap on Roberts, besides his chromosomal challenge, is that the former business lawyer hasn't been an active member of the bar for more than a decade. That shortcoming is obviously worth noting, but we believe Roberts' brainpower and political acumen are more important.
. . .
. . . Without showing disrespect to Linder's impressive pedigree, the Supreme Court already has three justices who spent significant portions of their careers in the attorney general's office, as Linder did. And it has three justices who came from the Court of Appeals, where Linder works now.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's role is to select those cases for review that justices believe will have the broadest impact. Such work requires a sharp intellect and an understanding of how law affects everyday citizens. The court is stocked with justices who have backgrounds similar to Linder's; it has nobody remotely like Roberts.

And adding Roberts to the court would be a good first step in breaking the ideological stranglehold on the state's highest court.