Bush to announce new supreme court justice

[E-Z-B]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush is close to a decision on his first nominee to the Supreme Court and could make his announcement as early as Tuesday, Republican sources said.

The sources said Bush is leaning toward picking a woman to fill the vacancy left by retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

A leading candidate is Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, the Republican said.

In a sign an announcement may be near, Bush met Monday night with Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would oversee the confirmation process.

Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

A Republican strategist with close to the White House described Clement as the leading candidate. "She's pretty untouchable," he said. "Plus, it helps take Rove off the front pages for a week."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050719/ts_nm/bush_court_dc_11

Sounds like they've moved up the supreme court justice decision to "change the subject" regarding Rove.

[E-Z-B]

What's interesting is this: Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top11jul19,0,706290.story

So unless had a "talk" with Clement, it seems odd that he'd nominate someone who isn't willing to destroy Roe v. Wade.

[MrBadExample]

I just had an email that he's making the announcement tonight at 9. A prime time news conference for a SC nominee?!? They really are trying hard to bump Rove off the front pages.

[vienge]

Rove? Who's that?

Y'know, this is a real big matter itself. Everyone was ready to make a big stink about it anyway.

[evilmax17]

I've heard the word "Litmus Test" more in the past year than I have in my entire life.

Any bets on how that "not using a Litmus Test" pans out?

[Quackzilla]

I fail to see how PH has anything to do with it.

[E-Z-B]

So is Bush trying to get a PH of 7, a neutral? Or is the litmus test to get something like a 1 which is Battery Acid?

[Rich]

What's interesting is this: Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."


Good. A conservative with some sense.

[MrBadExample]

Good. A conservative with some sense.
That's one. :lol:

[E-Z-B]

Will the religious right turn on the Bush administration if they don't nominate someone who's more hostile towards abortion? Will there be some political damage? Some of those pro-life guys are lunatics, too. Will there be any physical harm towards public figures? They've been waiting decades for this moment. I don't see them just sitting back and doing nothing.

[peteloaf]

I read an op-ed piece by a former Clinton advisor who seems to think that this nomination will break Bush and garauntee a Democrat for the next president. His opinion is that if the nominee isn't radicaly anti-abortion he'll realy upset the radical right, who feels he owes them. If he does nominate someone who is radicaly anti-abortion he will lose the women's vote. Now take this with however many grains of salt as you wish, as this is coming from a former Clinton advisor, I just thought it was an interesting point.

[MrBadExample]

It'll be odd if Clement is the nominee since Gonzales was torpedoed by the far right for being equally moderate on abortion.

[mykevermin]

I read an op-ed piece by a former Clinton advisor who seems to think that this nomination will break Bush and garauntee a Democrat for the next president. His opinion is that if the nominee isn't radicaly anti-abortion he'll realy upset the radical right, who feels he owes them. If he does nominate someone who is radicaly anti-abortion he will lose the women's vote. Now take this with however many grains of salt as you wish, as this is coming from a former Clinton advisor, I just thought it was an interesting point.

Well, I've heard this line of thinking before, and I feel that, while some of it makes sense (the religious voters feel that Bush is indebted to them), it also relies upon a totally illogical assumption. That assumption is that religious voters will leave the Republican party for the Democratic party, which is just beyond silly to consider, IMO. It is possible that they might not vote at all as a means of hurting the Republicans, but I don't buy that either. I think that people on the right side of the political spectrum are as much "anti" left wing ideologies as as the people they point to (Democrats) as being against so many things, yet proffering nothing.

The religious voters aren't going anywhere, and the Republicans would be far better off (i.e., more moderate in order to appeal to those voters who would or have left) recognizing that.

[vienge]

You guys DO realize the Supreme Court handles cases OTHER than Roe vs. Wade right?

The nominee doesn't have to be the one that is radically pro or anti-abortion, just able to be manipulated by the nominee for Reinquist's spot to vote against abortion.

Or hell, abortion could be the new red herring. Patriot Act anyone? I mean you are all looking at one issue while another goes right over your heads.

[E-Z-B]

Well, I've heard this line of thinking before, and I feel that, while some of it makes sense (the religious voters feel that Bush is indebted to them), it also relies upon a totally illogical assumption. That assumption is that religious voters will leave the Republican party for the Democratic party, which is just beyond silly to consider, IMO. It is possible that they might not vote at all as a means of hurting the Republicans, but I don't buy that either. I think that people on the right side of the political spectrum are as much "anti" left wing ideologies as as the people they point to (Democrats) as being against so many things, yet proffering nothing.

The religious voters aren't going anywhere, and the Republicans would be far better off (i.e., more moderate in order to appeal to those voters who would or have left) recognizing that.

However, Bush used gay marriage and "morals" to drive people who wouldn't normally vote to the polling booths last election. Should he choose pro-abortion judge, those people will be less likely to vote again.

[mykevermin]

As I said, some of them may simply not vote (it's absurd to think they'd vote Democrat out of sheer vindictiveness). I simply don't think it is that remarkable a group. They helped put him over the top in an election that shouldn't have been close for the incumbent. In any other election, I think they'd be irrelevant.

[alonzomourning23]

You guys DO realize the Supreme Court handles cases OTHER than Roe vs. Wade right?

The nominee doesn't have to be the one that is radically pro or anti-abortion, just able to be manipulated by the nominee for Reinquist's spot to vote against abortion.

Or hell, abortion could be the new red herring. Patriot Act anyone? I mean you are all looking at one issue while another goes right over your heads.

But what other forseeable decisions is as important?

[Drocket]

It definitely looks as though they're moving up the SC pick in order to distract at least some attention away from Rove (at this point, I doubt they'll be able to do so entirely.) I would be absolutely stunned if Bush picked anyone but a complete wingnut. The only real questions that I think are open are how bad of a wingnut, and exactly which wingnut it'll be.

What's interesting is this: Known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, Clement also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."
I don't really know if I see this as painting her as pro-choice. Think about it: all she really said was that the SC had decided people have a right to privacy, and that includes abortion. Her following statement could easily be 'They were wrong, and I intend to fix that.'

I never really got the extreme right's opposition to Gonzales, either. The most pro-choice statement that I've ever heard from him was that abortion is legal under the current laws. That's just a simple statement of reality - any other statement would move him purely into the realm of fantasy. Another simple basic statement of reality is that laws can and do change. Whether or not Gonzales would support a move to make abortion illegal isn't something that I've seen clearly answered.

Same sort of thing with this possible canidate: this statement shouldn't alleviate the fears of the pro-choice - its nothing more than a statement about the current reality. Though the fact that the canidate is capable of perceiving reality is a nice change of pace for the Bush administration, it doesn't answer any questions as to what the canidate thinks reality should be, or what they intend to do to change reality once they're in a position of power.

[sgs89]

It is looking more and more like it will NOT be Judge Clement. It is more likely to be Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit. She is more conservative than Clement, so expect sighs of relief from conservatives and a much more bitter confirmation battle.

I am still holding out (slim) hopes for Judge Roberts.

[mykevermin]

ABCNews is reporting that Clement sez "not me."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=953790

I bet Bush is gonna turn heel and nominate Karl Rove.

I can't say I'm familiar with Jones or Roberts. Links?

[David85]

Umm..... it is Roberts, I'm watching it on the news right now.

[alonzomourning23]

I don't know much about him, but I think I'm gonna hate him. First I heard about his letter (or speech, can't remember) in opposition to abortion in the early 90's. Then just stumbled along a bbc article with a brief outline of his histories (it was outlining the major candidates):

John G Roberts, 50, an appeals court judge for the DC circuit, graduated with top honours from Harvard College. He worked as a clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist before serving in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the current president's father.

In government and in private practice, he went on to earn a reputation as one of the best lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court.

Conservatives will be pleased by his record on abortion, the environment, and church-state issues.

He has argued that religious ceremonies could be part of high-school graduations, a stance the Supreme Court rejected by a vote of 5-4 in 1992.

He was more successful in arguing that government-funded doctors and clinics could not talk to patients about abortion. He has also taken stances against affirmative action.

George W Bush nominated him for his current position in 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4642275.stm

I haven't seen much, but so far this looks bad. I hope they have something to attack him with, though I think one of the appeals of him was there wasn't much to attack him on.

[zionoverfire]

I don't know much about him, but I think I'm gonna hate him. First I heard about his letter (or speech, can't remember) in opposition to abortion in the early 90's. Then just stumbled along a bbc article with a brief outline of his histories (it was outlining the major candidates):



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4642275.stm

I haven't seen much, but so far this looks bad. I hope they have something to attack him with, though I think one of the appeals of him was there wasn't much to attack him on.

Personally I'm pleased, the more lunies in the supreme court the sooner the president will loose the power to place them there.

[Sarang01]

Here's the problem with this guy though. PAD will disagree with me on this but I'm completely RIGHT in what I'm about to say. Conservatives argue that it isn't fair in jobs with Affirmative Action. Since WHEN has shit been fair in education for Whites and Blacks in low economic standing, see in public school in the city. So the next time Conservatives argue against AA and use MLK's speech in justification know they don't have ONE fucking leg to stand on except against Middle class and upper Blacks.
Truth be told educational funding needs to be fixed THEN they can start to argue that point.

[vienge]

Here's the problem with this guy though. PAD will disagree with me on this but I'm completely RIGHT in what I'm about to say.

I disagree with your silly assertion of complete rightness.

[Drocket]

Well, barring any information that I haven't heard reported on yet, Roberts isn't nearly as bad of a canidate as I would have bet on. He has a slight obsession with Roe V. Wade, to the point of regularly making references to it in completely unrelated cases, but is still probably the best that can be hoped for from Bush.Slightly disappointing, in a way.

Pondering how best for the Democrats to use the current situation, I think the most productive course would be to polite and civil, and speed things through quickly. Vote against him, certainly, but face reality that Bush is going to win this one no matter what and get it over with. Spending time and effort fighting this battle is only going to distract away from far more important ones, such as keeping up scrutiny on Rove. It also means that when Bush gets his next SC pick (and he'll almost certainly be getting at least one more - Rehnquist may get through another year, but anything beyond that is rather unlikely), the Democrats will be much more able to fight without much fear of being labeled 'obstructionist'.

Of course, all this is subject to change if anything new and particularly damaging comes out about Roberts.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

AA is wrong on the basis of the 14th Ammendment. Beginning and end of argument.

Also, it must be pointed out, that Robert's statements on Roe v. Wade and these other issues have been as an attorney arguing a case for a client. They were NOT personal views. A client had an agenda, in this case the Reagan Justice Department, he was the lawyer tasked with arguing the case.

There's a world of difference between serving the interests of your client in your arguments and handing down decisions from the bench and the accompanying written decision. Of course no one on the left will care about that distinction. At least no one funding the inevitable moveon.org type ads that will make this guy look l ike a Nazi judge.

Harvard College, Harvard Law School, head of the Harvard Law Review? That's impressive enough in itself. I know little about his professional career at this point but suffice to say I think his resume is as polished as can be. Doesn't hurt that he worked for Justice Rhenquist either.

He's going to sail in nomination, the D's aren't going to stop a candidate of this quality.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Here's the problem with this guy though. PAD will disagree with me on this but I'm completely RIGHT in what I'm about to say. Conservatives argue that it isn't fair in jobs with Affirmative Action. Since WHEN has shit been fair in education for Whites and Blacks in low economic standing, see in public school in the city. So the next time Conservatives argue against AA and use MLK's speech in justification know they don't have ONE fucking leg to stand on except against Middle class and upper Blacks.
Truth be told educational funding needs to be fixed THEN they can start to argue that point.

I don't think your entirely right either. If I grasp what your saying, AA only needs to stay in place because of education not being up to standards in the urban city areas? If that's true why isn't AA based on your educational background instead of skin color, or for that matter why is gender included at all in AA decisions? What about the white kids in poor school districts (yeah that happens)? Do they just get screwed over twice? Or some the nation's poorest school districts are near Native American reservations, how many native americans are benefiting from affirmative action versus african americans, latin americans, etc.? I'm sure some are, but I'll bet my bottom dollar that it sure isn't equal. So in response to your "completely right" statement, I'll finishing by saying that the educational funding system does need fixing, and so does the affirmative action system. Especially when it comes to things like college admissions and loans.

Edit: And I now realize this leads to a disccusion entirely off-topic mainly, so I'll just stop here.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I want to see AA applied where it really does belong.

I have a white friend in Miami, whites are >25% of the population in the city. He gets nothing that "minority" students get as far as admissions, housing subsidies, grants etc. when going to school despite his minority status in Dade County.

[alonzomourning23]

I want to see AA applied where it really does belong.

I have a white friend in Miami, whites are >25% of the population in the city. He gets nothing that "minority" students get as far as admissions, housing subsidies, grants etc. when going to school despite his minority status in Dade County.

But his odds of being discriminated against in education or professionally are minimal due to him being white. Also, if he is in need of it monetarily then you have an argument that he should be included, if he isn't then you don't.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You want to try to get a job in Dade County as a white person? You REALLLY think there's no discrimination when 80% of the population are native Spanish speakers? AA isn't about discrimination it's about balancing "diversity". Whites in Florida State system schools and Comminty College in Dade County need as much as if not more AA type "diversity" advatages as blacks do in New York, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

[alonzomourning23]

You want to try to get a job in Dade County as a white person? You REALLLY think there's no discrimination when 80% of the population are native Spanish speakers? AA isn't about discrimination it's about balancing "diversity". Whites in Florida State system schools and Comminty College in Dade County need as much as if not more AA type "diversity" advatages as blacks do in New York, Michigan or Pennsylvania.

Yes, due to discrimination. The idea was if they represent 20% of the pertaining areas population they should represent 20% of a university etc. population. I would be suprised if whites are underrepresented anywhere where diversity is to be expected (ie. local hispanic restaurants don't count) in dade county. When it was implemented, and to a lesser extent today, it was needed to ensure that minorities were accepted into universities and such since many places would have always chosen a white applicant over a black, asian etc. Now the focus has shifted more towards economics, and it needs to be readjusted to focus on minorites but also benefit anywhere in similar economic conditions to the minorities it is geared towards (wealthier minorities should not benefit if it is not necessary).

Also, not getting a job because you're white is different than not getting a job where you speak hispanic. One goes towards your qualification, the other has nothing to do with that. Though I'd be suprised if a white person didn't have an easier time finding a quality job than a hispanic person.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

And just what do you do if to get to a certain percentage of "required" diversity you need 1,000 idiots that are as stupid and illiterate as Fiddy Tent or The Game. While 1,000 qualified whites, Asians or Latino's don't get admitted to schools? What do you do when the washout rate of a "group" is 90% after the first year while denying slots to students whose "group" graduation rates are 85-90%?

Population basis discrimination is still.... discrimination. Lower the bar and let the stupid in if they are "underrepresented" as a "group". Who cares if they fail? At least the white liberals can go home pleased with themselves because they tried.... and failed.... but they still tried.

[alonzomourning23]

And just what do you do if to get to a certain percentage of "required" diversity you need 1,000 idiots that are as stupid and illiterate as Fiddy Tent or The Game. While 1,000 qualified whites, Asians or Latino's don't get admitted to schools? What do you do when the washout rate of a "group" is 90% after the first year while denying slots to students whose "group" graduation rates are 85-90%?

Population basis discrimination is still.... discrimination. Lower the bar and let the stupid in if they are "underrepresented" as a "group". Who cares if they fail? At least the white liberals can go home pleased with themselves because they tried.... and failed.... but they still tried.

You missed the point, as usual. It was to prevent them from being discriminated against. It was foolishly believed that effects of centuries of discrimination would disappear instantly and the percentages would balance out. It was correct to assume that many institutions would need to be forced to accept qualified minorities, but the extent of impact discrimination had had was not fully realized. Now the focus is on economics and changes should go in that direction.

Though if you want to show me a university letting in completely unqualified students due to there being minorities just to hit a percent I'd be glad to hear it.

You also seem to agree that your friend wasn't the target of discrimination.

Though the whole "we need stupid people to be represented" is ridiculous. Seriously, you need to take your medication, it's good for you.

[coffman]

Let's see, Roberts is vehemently against abortion and he wants to gut the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act. Yeah, I'm sure there won't be any "legislating from the bench" with him. I'm hoping for a filibuster on his nomination.

[Mike23]

They won't filibuster him, the "group of 14" senators promised to use it only on extraordinary circumstances and this is far from extraordinary, despite what you may believe.

[mykevermin]

Why hasn't anyone pointed out that the person nominated to the highest judicial position in the country has 2 years, 1 month, and 17 days of experience as a judge? He was commissioned to the court of appeals in DC on 6/2/03, and had never held a judicial position prior.

It screams that they're trying to nominate someone who is "clean" in this way. How can he have a history of pro-corporate, anti-environment, anti-choice, and anti-egalitarianist legislation when he's such a fucking newb?

Y'know, I'm still two years away from finishing my doctorate, but Roberts' nomination would be like Harvard offering me a tenured position, right now. It's simply absurd to think that this person is deserving of this nomination.

[MrBadExample]

I haven't read much about Roberts yet but one consideration is surely going to be his age. At 50 years old, he could be on the court for 30-40 years.

[mykevermin]

I haven't read much about Roberts yet but one consideration is surely going to be his age. At 50 years old, he could be on the court for 30-40 years.

Well, nobody's going to block a nominee for that reason, unless they want to end their political career with a quickness.

I simply think that Roberts has very little to no substantial judicial record, which is more important than anything in considering his nomination (how do you criticize someone so unspectacular if they have no record to speak of? Even the "rust vs. sullivan" fingerpointing is tiresome and irrelevant, since he wrote it as a lawyer, and *of course* he used strong language, since that's what lawyers do).

You don't get your own McDonald's franchise immediately after being promoted to fry cook, and you shouldn't go to the highest court in the land with so little judicial experience.

[E-Z-B]

Good point, mykevermin. Though I admit, I still need to research Roberts some more, it seems odd that many other more experienced judges were discarded simply because Bush was looking for an extreme conservative to either

(a) Satisfy the religious right,
(b) Stir up enough controversy and fighting to take attention off Benedict Rove,
(c) Both, (a) and (b).

[MrBadExample]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050719/lpo050719.gif

[MrBadExample]

Well, nobody's going to block a nominee for that reason, unless they want to end their political career with a quickness.

I simply think that Roberts has very little to no substantial judicial record, which is more important than anything in considering his nomination (how do you criticize someone so unspectacular if they have no record to speak of? Even the "rust vs. sullivan" fingerpointing is tiresome and irrelevant, since he wrote it as a lawyer, and *of course* he used strong language, since that's what lawyers do).

You don't get your own McDonald's franchise immediately after being promoted to fry cook, and you shouldn't go to the highest court in the land with so little judicial experience.
I didn't mean it as a reason to oppose him, just that he should be researched thoroughly because he will have a long-lasting effect on the Court.

[mykevermin]

Bush could do all that (see EZB's last post) with an experienced judge. The benefit of Roberts is that he's "clean." There's nothing to stick him on, because there's no record!

For christ's sake: when was the last time, Bush and Kerry notwithstanding (because that was due to political barbs about their respective idiocy), anyone had their college credentials mentioned when going for major political office? This is the entire selling point for Roberts: he got good grades, he was a good lawyer, and he's a nice man. There's NOTHING judicial to praise about the guy, just as there's NOTHING judicial to criticize about the guy. As long as the GOP makes sure they hide the fact that this guy has no relative judicial experience, he couldn't go in any faster if you dipped him in Astro-Glide.

[ZarathosNY]

Bush could do all that (see EZB's last post) with an experienced judge. The benefit of Roberts is that he's "clean." There's nothing to stick him on, because there's no record!

For christ's sake: when was the last time, Bush and Kerry notwithstanding (because that was due to political barbs about their respective idiocy), anyone had their college credentials mentioned when going for major political office? This is the entire selling point for Roberts: he got good grades, he was a good lawyer, and he's a nice man. There's NOTHING judicial to praise about the guy, just as there's NOTHING judicial to criticize about the guy. As long as the GOP makes sure they hide the fact that this guy has no relative judicial experience, he couldn't go in any faster if you dipped him in Astro-Glide.

That's EXACTLY the problem with Roberts. He has long no experience. You should have more than 2 years of judicial experience in order to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

[E-Z-B]

lol, check out the pictures of Roberts' son during the announcement:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050720/capt.whcd11807200147.scotus_bush_whcd118.jpg

President Bush introduces his nominee for the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts Jr., left, as his son John, dances, and wife Jane and daughter Josephine, look on in the State Dining Room at the White House, Tuesday, July 19, 2005, in Washington.


http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050720/capt.sge.nio95.200705085936.photo03.photo.default-384x252.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20050720/i/r1720464118.jpg

I guess they removed the family because chimpy was getting distracted.

[alonzomourning23]

It almost looks like the kids wearing knickers.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

We're all eligible to serve on the Supreme Court. You don't have an age, education or experience requirement. You certainly don't need to be a lawyer.

[E-Z-B]

We're all eligible to serve on the Supreme Court. You don't have an age, education or experience requirement. You certainly don't need to be a lawyer.

Though technically correct, no sane president would pick someone without an thorough understanding of the legal system and precedents on court cases.

[vienge]

We're all eligible to serve on the Supreme Court. You don't have an age, education or experience requirement. You certainly don't need to be a lawyer.
Sounds like the plot for a Martin Lawerance movie.

[MrBadExample]

Sounds like the plot for a Martin Lawerance movie.
You so crazy, Justice Martin! :lol:

[mykevermin]

:rofl:

[MrBadExample]

Some new info courtesy of Salon (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=)

Florida 2000? John Roberts was there

Republicans railing against Democrats' "obstructionist tactics" in the Senate return again and again to a phrase they like to use: "Elections have consequences." What they mean, of course, is that George W. Bush won the White House, and to that victor go the spoils.
It's not a bad way to frame the argument, the separation of powers and the Constitution's "advice and consent" clause notwithstanding. But when it comes to Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court, there's a bit of a circular quality to it: John G. Roberts helped Bush become the victor in the first place -- and not just by giving a grand to the first Bush-Cheney campaign. As the Los Angeles Times is reporting today, Roberts traveled in the fall of 2000 to the sunny state of Florida, where he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role in helping Bush prevail in the legal fight that followed the disputed presidential election.

Republican lawyers who worked on the recount told the Times that Roberts advised Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on the role that he and the Florida Legislature could play in the fight over the recounting of ballots. "Mr. Roberts, one of the preeminent constitutional attorneys in the country, came to Florida in 2000 at his own expense and met with Gov. Bush to share what he believed the governor's responsibilities were under federal law after a presidential election and a presidential election under dispute," Jeb Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre told the Times. "Judge Roberts was one of several experts who came to Florida to share their ideas. The governor appreciated his willingness to serve and valued his counsel."

Working on the recount is hardly disqualifying -- as the Times notes, just about every leading constitutional-law type was involved in the case somehow -- but Roberts' role does raise some questions about whether he's really the nonpartisan lawyer and jurist that his proponents would make him out to be. "What's interesting is that only now is it coming to the fore that John Roberts was part of that," People for the American Way President Ralph Neas told the Times. "He always created an impression of being above the political fray, being part of the Washington legal establishment, but not of partisan politics."

Will Roberts be asked about his role in Florida during his upcoming confirmation hearings? Almost certainly. Will he respond? Don't count on it. As Rep. Tom Feeney, a Republican from Florida, told the Times yesterday: "I don't know that there is any political benefit to answering that question."

[E-Z-B]

lol, all those other judges who were more qualified than Roberts got passed over simply because they never helped Dubya get to where he is today, including giving Bush $80,000:

Lobbyists Bankrolling Politics
Bush gets nearly four times as much as Kerry

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2004 — More than 1,300 registered lobbyists have given slightly more than $1.8 million to President George W. Bush over the last six years, according to a Center for Public Integrity study comparing the donations of all registered lobbyists from 1998 through March 2004. Sen. John Kerry received $520,000 from 442 lobbyists during the same period.

Such numbers account for a significant percentage of those who ply the influence game. In fact, the lobbyists who donated to Bush have represented about 6,000 clients; those who gave to Kerry, approximately 3,000 clients. Combined, these figures add up to more than half of all the companies that hire lobbyists, according to the Senate Office of Public Records. The SOPR says that there are currently 24,000 lobbyists registered to represent 15,000 clients.

Registered Lobbyists Appointed to Bush's Transition Teams and Their Activity

Justice John Roberts - Hogan & Hartson - $80,000

http://www.publicintegrity.com/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=273

[vienge]

Wait, you mean a politician would prefer to help someone who's helped them over someone who hasn't?

OMG YOU SOLVED THE TERRIBLE SECRET OF SPACE!




Come on guys, this is polisci 101

[MrBadExample]

Wait, you mean a politician would prefer to help someone who's helped them over someone who hasn't?

OMG YOU SOLVED THE TERRIBLE SECRET OF SPACE!




Come on guys, this is polisci 101
Maybe you missed this part...
but Roberts' role does raise some questions about whether he's really the nonpartisan lawyer and jurist that his proponents would make him out to be. "What's interesting is that only now is it coming to the fore that John Roberts was part of that," People for the American Way President Ralph Neas told the Times. "He always created an impression of being above the political fray, being part of the Washington legal establishment, but not of partisan politics.

[alonzomourning23]

This is from newsmax, which is generally accurate. God I hope they're wrong though:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/20/221950.shtml

Judge Roberts' Wife Ran Pro-life Group

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has made conflicting statements over the years on Roe v. Wade - calling it "settled law" during his 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings but "wrongly decided" while he served as deputy solicitor general.

There's no doubt, however, where his wife comes down on the hot-button issue of abortion.

"The role of his lawyer wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, in Feminists for Life, a group dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade, is ... certain to raise liberal eyebrows," reports today's Boston Globe.
In fact, Mrs. Roberts once served as executive vice president for the pro-life group.

On the Feminists for Life Web site, the group's mission statement explains:

"Feminists for Life recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic woman-centered solutions.

"Women deserve better than abortion," the mission statement continues.

"Feminists for Life continues the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, who opposed abortion."

[E-Z-B]

This is from newsmax, which is generally accurate. God I hope they're wrong though:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/20/221950.shtml

Roberts is so full of BS. I'm all full the filibuster now.

[MrBadExample]

This is from newsmax, which is generally accurate. God I hope they're wrong though:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/20/221950.shtml
I heard this yesterday too. So much for him being a "stealth" nominee...

[mykevermin]

This is from newsmax, which is generally accurate.

Go away and bring us back the alonzo that made sense.

[alonzomourning23]

Go away and bring us back the alonzo that made sense.

lol, they put lots of spin but the basis is usually true. If I see a story there and look it up elsewhere it's usually accurate. That can't be said for the other conservative site I frequent, frontpagemag.

[vienge]

Maybe you missed this part...
No I read it. I just don't A.) care, B.) think it's surprising that a judge would have partisan leanings.

[vienge]

And isn't PFAW just a bunch of socialists?

[elprincipe]

I want to see AA applied where it really does belong.

I have a white friend in Miami, whites are >25% of the population in the city. He gets nothing that "minority" students get as far as admissions, housing subsidies, grants etc. when going to school despite his minority status in Dade County.

So what? Just because he happens to be the minority in terms of race doesn't entitle him to any preference. If he's given equal treatment he has nothing to complain about.

[mykevermin]

lol, they put lots of spin but the basis is usually true. If I see a story there and look it up elsewhere it's usually accurate. That can't be said for the other conservative site I frequent, frontpagemag.

Well, with David Horowitz at the helm of that shitrag publication, what do you expect?

Since Horowitz is the champion of the "academic bill of rights," did you ever read about the Kuwaiti student at Foothill College (CA) that claimed liberal bias in failing a PoliSci final? Aww, man, I need to find that link...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502220005 (Article)

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad'sessay121004.htm (Essay)

David Horowitz is just awesome. Seriously, because, if he put any effort whatsoever into evaluating those things he champions, he'd know that this paper would fail a 9th grade course.

[alonzomourning23]

Well, with David Horowitz at the helm of that shitrag publication, what do you expect?

Since Horowitz is the champion of the "academic bill of rights," did you ever read about the Kuwaiti student at Foothill College (CA) that claimed liberal bias in failing a PoliSci final? Aww, man, I need to find that link...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502220005 (Article)

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/Ahmad'sessay121004.htm (Essay)

David Horowitz is just awesome. Seriously, because, if he put any effort whatsoever into evaluating those things he champions, he'd know that this paper would fail a 9th grade course.

Don't remember that one, but I remember a very similar one involving a woman. That was just as ridiculous, with horowitz even admitting he never saw the paper or test (either way, it was written and not multiple choice).

I remember one day typing that site in and thinking "wonder what it will be today, bet it will be some muslim denouncing his religion as a bunch of terrorists", oddly enough, that's exactly what the main article was. I had never seen that exactly on the website, it was always ex muslims who became christian.

[vienge]

This guy helped throw out a piece of the DMCA and thus ruled against the RIAA

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000988941

I love this guy now.

Fuck the haters. Roberts > *

[alonzomourning23]

This guy helped throw out a piece of the DMCA and thus ruled against the RIAA

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000988941

I love this guy now.

Fuck the haters. Roberts > *

Wait, so file sharing is more important than abortions, detention centers, gay rights etc? No wonder america has been going down the drain lately.

[vienge]

Wait, so file sharing is more important than abortions, detention centers, gay rights etc? No wonder america has been going down the drain lately.

Gay rights, don't affect me

Detention centers? I'm for stricter punishment.

Abortions? Who said I was pro-choice?

Oh no, I have different priorities than you, the world is going to be torn apart for our difference of opinion!

[alonzomourning23]

Gay rights, don't affect me

Detention centers? I'm for stricter punishment.

Abortions? Who said I was pro-choice?

Oh no, I have different priorities than you, the world is going to be torn apart for our difference of opinion!

God you're an idiot. Do you honestly think only pro choice people care about abortion? That only those who are against current detainment policies care about that? Last time I checked there were tons of people who cared about those issues on both sides.

And it's kind of sad that you only concern yourself with issues that directly effect you (in reference to gay rights).

[mykevermin]

Detention centers? I'm for stricter punishment.

Oh, BOY! Yet another mongoloid who seems to think that deterrence strategies to corrections work!

Introduce yourself to to social science in the field of corrections, pal. I'm being very serious when I say you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on punishment if this is what you think, because you couldn't be more wrong about the effects of punishing the incarcerated.

As for your "welp! not gay, don't care!" argument, you're outing yourself as a typical right winger. You seem to lack the understanding and willingness to work for the rights of citizens at large when considering who represents you. Tax cuts and Ted Nugent, right shecky?

Person getting mugged? Not you!

Corporate scandal in a company that you hold stock in? You didn't do it!

1,800 soldiers dead for a pack of lies? Not me!

10,000+ civilians dead for a pack of lies? Fuck 'em, they aren't Americans!

Can't burn my Toby Keith "Bootleg Up Yer Ass" collection? NOOOOOOOOOO!!! (cue Darth Vader).

[E-Z-B]

Can't burn my Toby Keith "Bootleg Up Yer Ass" collection? NOOOOOOOOOO!!! (cue Darth Vader).

I loved the Dixie Chick's FUTK t-shirt. :lol:

[camoor]

Wait, so file sharing is more important than abortions, detention centers, gay rights etc? No wonder america has been going down the drain lately.

Intellectual property rights is actually a huge issue - especially with China becoming a greater world power (being that China practically looks the other way at rampant software piracy). There will be some interesting legal decisions that will have to be made in this arena and it's interesting to see a Bush-appointed nominee that doesn't uphold the side of big business for every single decision.

Sure, abortion is the elephant in the room but I wouldn't mind finding out his feelings on the 100+ years that copyrights can be extended to, as well as decisions regarding the congressionally overprotected pharmaceutical industry. With a Republican majority everywhere you turn, the key word is going to have to be "compromise".

[MrBadExample]

No I read it. I just don't A.) care, B.) think it's surprising that a judge would have partisan leanings.
You're still not catching on, so I will use small words: It's not the fact that he has partisan leanings, it's that he is being painted as someone who has stayed about the political fray. It's a lie; he's a political hack.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Did you know that while President Bush was making his nationally televised prime-time announcement, Judge Roberts son was dancing off camera.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050720/capt.whcd10607202337.scotus_roberts_profile_whcd10 6.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050720/capt.sge.nio76.200705085833.photo00.photo.default-384x252.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/nm/20050720/mdf614514.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/afp/20050720/capt.sge.ngq49.200705015402.photo00.photo.default-380x280.jpg

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050720/capt.whcd11807200147.scotus_bush_whcd118.jpg

[evilmax17]

Did you know that while President Bush was making his nationally televised prime-time announcement, Judge Roberts son was dancing off camera.
Yes, yes I did. (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1159807&postcount=45)

[MrBadExample]

Didn't Dubya do the same thing when his dad was inaugurated?

[vienge]

You're still not catching on, so I will use small words: It's not the fact that he has partisan leanings, it's that he is being painted as someone who has stayed about the political fray. It's a lie; he's a political hack.
Congratulations, you found out about spin.

[vienge]

Oh, BOY! Yet another mongoloid who seems to think that deterrence strategies to corrections work!


Hi, son of a family of Correctional Officers here. My knowledge on corrections is twice over whatever you could possible read from some sandy vagina'ed hippy website.

[E-Z-B]

from some sandy vagina'ed hippy website.

That's the SECOND time I've seen someone write that - you and Rich. Is there some sort of Republican fixation on this? :-k

[mykevermin]

Hi, son of a family of Correctional Officers here. My knowledge on corrections is twice over whatever you could possible read from some sandy vagina'ed hippy website.

Evidently you'd rather rely on anecdotal evidence than actual data?

Hi, sociologist with a focus on corrections and recidivism here.

Although I'm not certain how "sandy vagina'ed hippy website" begins to descripe the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Perhaps you'd care to explain?

[MrBadExample]

More Questions for Roberts (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/25/roberts.records.ap/index.html)
The White House is bungling again. They wanted to get Karl Rove off the front pages (which they didn't) and now Roberts' nomination for SC is fraught with questions. I don't know enough about the Federalist Society to think he should be disqualified as a member, but he can't recall if he was a member even though he was on the steering committee?!? And the White House won't release all his records?!? There are way more questions than answers about this guy. And if they keep using the "I can't recall" defense, he will go from being Clintonian to Reaganesque. :lol:

[E-Z-B]

Sadly, this is the outlook on him as of right now:

http://www.dubyasworld.com/democratic-senators-john-roberts.jpg

[CaseyRyback]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050727/pl_washpost/documents_show_roberts_influence_in_reagan_era;_yl t=AlhyfInqtSpqFnV2wVGenTRuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW 9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I think this right here is going to cause a whole heap of trouble on having a smooth confirmation process

[MrBadExample]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050727/pl_washpost/documents_show_roberts_influence_in_reagan_era;_yl t=AlhyfInqtSpqFnV2wVGenTRuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW 9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I think this right here is going to cause a whole heap of trouble on having a smooth confirmation process

from the article:
Roberts presented a defense of bills in Congress that would have stripped the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over abortion, busing and school prayer cases; he argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX, the landmark law that bars sex discrimination in intercollegiate athletic programs; and he even counseled his boss on how to tell the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow that the administration was cutting off federal funding for the Atlanta center that bears his name.

They'll try to play off a lot of this as "he was just following orders," but I think trying to strip the SC uf jurisdiction is definitely troublesome. This guy is racking up a lot of negatives for someone presented so clean just a week ago. Plus Bush is going to be spending a lot of political capital trying to keep Rovegate off the front pages. August is going to be interesting.

[Drocket]

They'll try to play off a lot of this as "he was just following orders," but I think trying to strip the SC uf jurisdiction is definitely troublesome. This guy is racking up a lot of negatives for someone presented so clean just a week ago. Plus Bush is going to be spending a lot of political capital trying to keep Rovegate off the front pages. August is going to be interesting.
Was there ever any real doubt that he'd be a right-wing nutjob? The only real surprise is that he's managed to be a quieter right-wing nutjob than most - usually most of these people are screaming loons.

My favorite part, though, has to be that he as on the Steering Committee of the Federalist Society for 2 years, yet 'can't remember' it. Gee, you can't tell that he worked for the Reagan administration at all, can you?

[E-Z-B]

The faith of John Roberts

By Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.

July 25, 2005

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called the stealth nominee for the Supreme Court — a nominee specifically selected because he has few public positions on controversial issues such as abortion. However, in a meeting last week, Roberts briefly lifted the carefully maintained curtain over his personal views. In so doing, he raised a question that could not only undermine the White House strategy for confirmation but could raise a question of his fitness to serve as the 109th Supreme Court justice.

The exchange occurred during one of Roberts' informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. Roberts is a devout Catholic and is married to an ardent pro-life activist. The Catholic Church considers abortion to be a sin, and various church leaders have stated that government officials supporting abortion should be denied religious rites such as communion. (Pope Benedict XVI is often cited as holding this strict view of the merging of a person's faith and public duties).

Renowned for his unflappable style in oral argument, Roberts appeared nonplused and, according to sources in the meeting, answered after a long pause that he would probably have to recuse himself.

It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws. (To his credit, Roberts did not say that his faith would control in such a case).

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley25jul25,0,3148446.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Granted it's in the opinion section, so take it for what it's worth. I wouldn't be surprised, though.

[sgs89]

Look, people, whether you agree with what you THINK Judge Roberts' political positions are is entirely irrelevant. The question for confirmation SHOULD be whether he is (a) qualified and (b) someone likely to discharge faithfully his duties as a Supreme Court justice. The answer to both of these questions is an unambiguous "yes."

Judge Roberts is probably the most qualified person for the job. He is widely regarded as the preeminent Supreme Court advocate of the last two decades. He is VERY smart and has impressed people -- on both sides of the political aisle -- during his relatively short period on the DC Circuit.

He should be confirmed post haste.

[Drocket]

Look, people, whether you agree with what you THINK Judge Roberts' political positions are is entirely irrelevant. The question for confirmation SHOULD be whether he is (a) qualified and (b) someone likely to discharge faithfully his duties as a Supreme Court justice. The answer to both of these questions is an unambiguous "yes."

Not necessarily: The duties of a Supreme Court justice is to objectively analyse and interprect the Constitution. If he has pre-existing political and/or religious beliefs that are going to make it difficult for him to objectively interprete the law, then he isn't qualified for the position. The only way to know if this is the case is to examine his political positions, therefore making them entirely relevant.

[mykevermin]

Judge Roberts is probably the most qualified person for the job.

Two years. That's how long he's been a judge. You're full of shit.

[sgs89]

Not necessarily: The duties of a Supreme Court justice is to objectively analyse and interprect the Constitution. If he has pre-existing political and/or religious beliefs that are going to make it difficult for him to objectively interprete the law, then he isn't qualified for the position. The only way to know if this is the case is to examine his political positions, therefore making them entirely relevant.

I agree with you to an extent. His political views are relevant only insofar as they would prohibit from applying the Constitution in a fair manner. There is no indication that Judge Roberts falls into that category. To the contrary, he has so far proven to be quite capable of fairly interpreting and applying the law.

My point is this: whether he is pro- or anti-abortion is irrelevant. Whether he is conservative or liberal is irrelevant. What matters is whether he is capable and faithful to his duties. The only evidence adduced so far weighs HEAVILY in favor of finding that he is.

[sgs89]

Two years. That's how long he's been a judge. You're full of shit.

My God, you are ignorant. Look, throughout history, the MAJORITY of Supreme Court justices were not even judges when they were appointed. They were senators, or lawyers, or attorney generals. Get a clue. Being a judge is not a prerequisite to being a Supreme Court justice.

And, even if it were, Judge Roberts has served admirably on what is widely considered to be the second most prestigious court in the United States. Before that, he was THE MOST RESPECTED advocate at the Supreme Court.

In the future, please reserve your comments to those threads where you have a clue what you are talking about.

[mykevermin]

My God, you are ignorant. Look, throughout history, the MAJORITY of Supreme Court justices were not even judges when they were appointed. They were senators, or lawyers, or attorney generals. Get a clue. Being a judge is not a prerequisite to being a Supreme Court justice.

Your god has nothing to do with me. Drop some names, homeslice. Who had zero time as a judge before serving?

And, even if it were, Judge Roberts has served admirably on what is widely considered to be the second most prestigious court in the United States. Before that, he was THE MOST RESPECTED advocate at the Supreme Court.

This is all subjective patting on the back. If he had done anything of worth, Bush would have spent his time during the nomination speech discussing this, and not his 25-year old grades at Harvard.

In the future, please reserve your comments to those threads where you have a clue what you are talking about.

You're cute. You must be new here. Awww.

[sgs89]

Your god has nothing to do with me. Drop some names, homeslice. Who had zero time as a judge before serving?



This is all subjective patting on the back. If he had done anything of worth, Bush would have spent his time during the nomination speech discussing this, and not his 25-year old grades at Harvard.



You're cute. You must be new here. Awww.

Well, to give you one recent example: Chief Justice Rehnquist was never a judge before assuming his position on the Supreme Court. Get it?

If you don't think Judge Roberts is qualified, you obviously haven't done much research other than bashing him because you don't like his politics. Any serious observer, whether they like his politics or not, agrees that he is eminently qualified. You certainly don't hear any democratic senators suggesting otherwise, do you?

[sgs89]

Oh, and by the way, I actually joined these forums before you did. I just don't post here quite so much because I have a real life. How cute.

[mykevermin]

A life? Please. If you're such a genius, you can do better than that.

So you're right about Rehnquist. I don't think that immediately qualifies Roberts, unless you'd like to point out the sheer number of Harvard Law grads on the Court, call it a good ol' boys club, and give Roberts the fast track to nomination.

The fact is, beyond his legal credentials, he says many things that contradict what is shown. He claims to have never been a member of the Federalist Society (think Project for a New American Century), yet theit 1997-1998 leadership directory includes him. He has not, and evidently will not, come clean about his judicial philosophy. IMO, Bush has picked the person with the cleanest record, and in doing so, has nominated someone entirely unspectacular. Just as there is no real basis for opposing him, there is no basis for supporting him (he's a nice man and got good grades during the Carter administration are not sufficient for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land). He's a blank slate, and a dangerous one at that.

How can you claim that this man is eminently qualified when so little is known about him?

[sgs89]

Well, in my opinion, graduation from HLS (as a magna cum laude, no less) is a significant achievement that does strongly suggest that Judge Roberts is a VERY smart man. Of course, that is just one person's opinion (though informed on that particular subject ;-)).

As to your particular point, how is it fair to attack Roberts when he says he does not think he was ever a member of the Federalist Society? I have no reason to doubt him. It is quite possible that he was listed on the directory improperly (I am sure that they did wish he was a member). He has no reason to lie -- it is not as if the Federalist Society is a black mark.

The basis for supporting him is clear -- he is smart, an accomplished legal scholar, a well-respected (though, as you point out, short term) jurist. There is simply nothing in his background to suggest that he is incapable of discharging his duties faithfully. That you might not agree with his particular positions on specific issues (though I would suggest you don't know as much about his positions as you pretend) is really of no moment.

In short, I would argue that much IS known about Judge Roberts. Certainly enough to show that he is eminently qualified to assume the important role of associate justice of the SCOTUS.

[mykevermin]

I suppose this is the part where we agree to disagree, no?

[sgs89]

I suppose this is the part where we agree to disagree, no?

If you have nothing else of substance to add, I guess so.

[mykevermin]

If you have nothing else of substance to add, I guess so.

Considering that the last few debatable posts were nothing more remarkable than our respective opinions, then I don't think I'd be alone in this trend, Mr. Pot.

[sgs89]

Considering that the last few debatable posts were nothing more remarkable than our respective opinions, then I don't think I'd be alone in this trend, Mr. Pot.

On that point, Mr. Kettle, I will have to disagree (or is it "Professor Murder"?).

I presented a reasoned argument that Judge Roberts is qualifed.

You did not present a reasoned argument that he is unqualified.

[RedvsBlue]

Just wait, as soon as Rehnquist kicks it, I'll be nominated for Chief Justice. You heard it hear first.

[sgs89]

Just wait, as soon as Rehnquist kicks it, I'll be nominated for Chief Justice. You heard it hear first.

Wait, is Janice Rogers Brown a member of the CAG forums? Who would have thunk it...

[mykevermin]

On that point, Mr. Kettle, I will have to disagree (or is it "Professor Murder"?).

I presented a reasoned argument that Judge Roberts is qualifed.

You did not present a reasoned argument that he is unqualified.

Evidently, you didn't read what I had to say. I can live with that.

One thing I can't live with is being on this damn board all night, though.

[RedvsBlue]

Wait, is Janice Rogers Brown a member of the CAG forums? Who would have thunk it...


Nah, she's a decoy.

[sgs89]

Nah, she's a decoy.

What, exactly, are your qualifications for said appointment?

[E-Z-B]

Roberts Worked on Behalf of Gay Activists
By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them convince the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

The coalition won its case, 6-3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' role working on behalf of gay activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay-rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-roberts4aug04,0,1823941.story?coll=la-home-headlines#Scene_1

Wonder how this will play out with the religious right.

[alonzomourning23]

That deserves a giant WTF?

[sgs89]

It really goes to my point, which is despite all of the folks ready to attack Judge Roberts, we don't really know that much about his politics. What we DO know is that he is quite qualified, very skilled, and should be confirmed with minimal bickering.

[E-Z-B]

Looks like a conservative group is withdrawing support for Roberts now over the issue with gays: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROBERTS?SITE=TNJAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[mykevermin]

Who the fuck is that group? The REAL liberal media wouldn't give those fuckin' assholes the time of day. It's like having a news piece about the local old assholes that sit on a porch and reminisce about the good ol' days when you could drink and drive, or kick a $$$$$$ when you wanted to, withdraw support from a Republican. I withdrew support for a lot of thing a lot of times, and nobody but me gives a shit. Why do these hecneyed hee-haws deserve any coverage?

[sgs89]

Who the fuck is that group? The REAL liberal media wouldn't give those fuckin' assholes the time of day. It's like having a news piece about the local old assholes that sit on a porch and reminisce about the good ol' days when you could drink and drive, or kick a $$$$$$ when you wanted to, withdraw support from a Republican. I withdrew support for a lot of thing a lot of times, and nobody but me gives a shit. Why do these hecneyed hee-haws deserve any coverage?

I agree with you.

This group is engaging in the same fallacy as those on the left who seek to crucify Judge Roberts for positions he advocated FOR HIS CLIENT during his time in the Reagan administration. I mean, it is beyond me why people cannot understand that, as a lawyer, you take positions ALL THE TIME that are not necessarily consistent with your own personal views.

The simple truth remains: Judge Roberts is the right man for the job. On that, we can agree.

[evilmax17]

The simple truth remains: Judge Roberts is the right man for the job. On that, we can agree.
We can? Last I heard he had little-to-no judicial experience, and this is a lifetime judicial position on the highest court in the land. Doesn't seem very qualified to me, and we shouldn't just "shoo him in" for a lifetime position. HEAVEN FORBID we actually discuss things in this country.

[sgs89]

We can? Last I heard he had little-to-no judicial experience, and this is a lifetime judicial position on the highest court in the land. Doesn't seem very qualified to me, and we shouldn't just "shoo him in" for a lifetime position. HEAVEN FORBID we actually discuss things in this country.

Please see the discussion earlier in this thread (particularly my posts). Judge Roberts is VERY qualified and no serious observer questions that.

As I pointed out to others, the majority of Supreme Court justices throughout history have not even been judges prior to their appointment (one recent example is Chief Justice Rehnquist).

That being said, Judge Roberts has served admirably on what is widely regarded as the second most prestigious court in the land (the DC Circuit), was known as the most effective Supreme Court advocate of the last two decades (arguing nearly 40 cases before the SCOTUS), and is uniformly recognized as being very smart and thoughtful.

[MrBadExample]

http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/08/04/boll/story.gif

http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/08/11/boll/story.gif

[mykevermin]

Please see the discussion earlier in this thread (particularly my posts). Judge Roberts is VERY qualified and no serious observer questions that.

As I pointed out to others, the majority of Supreme Court justices throughout history have not even been judges prior to their appointment (one recent example is Chief Justice Rehnquist).

That being said, Judge Roberts has served admirably on what is widely regarded as the second most prestigious court in the land (the DC Circuit), was known as the most effective Supreme Court advocate of the last two decades (arguing nearly 40 cases before the SCOTUS), and is uniformly recognized as being very smart and thoughtful.

I can't argue that (though I would like more examples, other than Rehnquist, of those with no judicial experience).

NONE OF THIS, however, disqualifies Roberts from a good prolonged round of question and answer. If he is going to be as good a judge as he was a lawyer, there shouldn't be any problems, right? Some right-wing pundits are outraged that Joe Biden (or Dick Durbin, or someone not named Hillary who is jockeying for a 2008 position) wants to ask Roberts what his judicial approach would be if presented with a clear judicial ruling that would go against his religious belief system. Personally, I'd love to know how Roberts would answer that question. If he's willing to take up a supreme court position, he had better be willing and able, loud and proud, to embrace the constitution as the be-all, end-all of American politics. Including (and *especially*) when it is contrary to your personal faith and/or belief system.

[sgs89]

I can't argue that (though I would like more examples, other than Rehnquist, of those with no judicial experience).

NONE OF THIS, however, disqualifies Roberts from a good prolonged round of question and answer. If he is going to be as good a judge as he was a lawyer, there shouldn't be any problems, right? Some right-wing pundits are outraged that Joe Biden (or Dick Durbin, or someone not named Hillary who is jockeying for a 2008 position) wants to ask Roberts what his judicial approach would be if presented with a clear judicial ruling that would go against his religious belief system. Personally, I'd love to know how Roberts would answer that question. If he's willing to take up a supreme court position, he had better be willing and able, loud and proud, to embrace the constitution as the be-all, end-all of American politics. Including (and *especially*) when it is contrary to your personal faith and/or belief system.

I don't disagree with you. I don't think, however, that he should be expected to answer questions about how he would rule in particular cases, such as an abortion case.

And remember, the Constitution is open to many schools of interpretation, so the fact that he might interpret the Constitution in a way that does not necessarily accord with your interpretation does not mean he is not "qualified" to serve on the SCOTUS.

[sgs89]

As for some other examples of modern-day Justices who were not judges upon being nominated: Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. (1972-1987), Abe Fortas (1965-1969), and Byron White (1962-1993) to name but a few.

[mykevermin]

And remember, the Constitution is open to many schools of interpretation, so the fact that he might interpret the Constitution in a way that does not necessarily accord with your interpretation does not mean he is not "qualified" to serve on the SCOTUS.

No shit?

[sgs89]

Thanks for the insightful analysis, Professor Murder.

We now return to the regularly scheduled broadcast.

[mykevermin]

Thanks for the insightful analysis, Professor Murder.

Quid pro quo, bebe.

[sgs89]

I see that you are not commenting on my listing of three additional recent SCOTUS Justices who did not serve as judges prior to appointment. I guess you have conceded the point that Judge Roberts is qualified.

[mykevermin]

I see that you are not commenting on my listing of three additional recent SCOTUS Justices who did not serve as judges prior to appointment. I guess you have conceded the point that Judge Roberts is qualified.

What kind of logic did you study? I will concede that he has decent credentials, but the need for rigorous questioning of Roberts would make any concession of his qualifications hastened.

I appreciate your data mining; one example alone (e.g., Rehnquist) is merely an anecdote. If you wanted to make your point that no judicial experience is more common than one person, then it was your obligation to prove it. You did that, and I say thank you. That's my only reaction to that.

If you want to get pissy because I take offense to your condescending grade school level government lecture (the constitution can be interpreted various ways), then go ahead and be snippy. But also be aware that, with few exceptions, those who frequent the versus forums have some semblance of knowledge about how our government works.

[sgs89]

"Some semblance" is about right.

I never argued that he should not be questioned. Of course he should. What I took issue with was your conclusion that he was not qualified. To your credit, you appear to have retreated from that ill-informed position.

And I do think you are confused about the various ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted and how that impacts whether someone is qualified to serve on the Court. Your hostility to my comments betrays your defensiveness about this issue.

[alonzomourning23]

I see that you are not commenting on my listing of three additional recent SCOTUS Justices who did not serve as judges prior to appointment. I guess you have conceded the point that Judge Roberts is qualified.

Current nominations are treated very differently. Yes, people used to be appointed with minimal judicial qualifications, but that is not the case anymore. Just like many other things, the appointment process has changed in more recent times, judicial experience is expected now. If someone without judicial qualifications had been appointed in later decades it would have been much more of an issue.

[sgs89]

Current nominations are treated very differently. Yes, people used to be appointed with minimal judicial qualifications, but that is not the case anymore. Just like many other things, the appointment process has changed in more recent times, judicial experience is expected now.

Well, Rehnquist had no judicial experience. Neither did Justice White. These are two of the last 11 or so Justices.

The importance of judicial experience comes and goes. I predict that in the next decade at least one Justice will be appointed (and confirmed) who has no judicial experience.

[mykevermin]

"Some semblance" is about right.

I never argued that he should not be questioned. Of course he should. What I took issue with was your conclusion that he was not qualified. To your credit, you appear to have retreated from that ill-informed position.

And I do think you are confused about the various ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted and how that impacts whether someone is qualified to serve on the Court. Your hostility to my comments betrays your defensiveness about this issue.

My hostility is hostility to patronization. If I gave you step by step instructions on how to go potty all by yourself, I imagine you'd be incredulous at my assumption that you lack that knowledge.

I'm interested in how you think I'm confused about the constitution's possible interpretations. Please elaborate.

[alonzomourning23]

Well, Rehnquist had no judicial experience. Neither did Justice White. These are two of the last 11 or so Justices.

The importance of judicial experience comes and goes. I predict that in the next decade at least one Justice will be appointed (and confirmed) who has no judicial experience.

But a lot has changed, try getting a justice appointed to the supreme court in the 80's till today and you wont get very far. It was often treated as a reward for what you've done, now it is more about your qualifications. A lot has changed since 1972, in political terms that isn't recent history.

edit: I just saw this old poll which highlights the stupidity of americans, and since we're talking about judges I thought it fit:


In a 1989 survey, Americans were asked, among other "general knowledge" questions, to name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Nine percent correctly named William Rehnquist; 54% named Judge Wapner (http://www.nndb.com/people/744/000022678/).

http://www.nndb.com/people/984/000022918/

[sgs89]

I'm interested in how you think I'm confused about the constitution's possible interpretations. Please elaborate.

Well, why don't you explain what you believe to be the relevant schools of constitutional interpretation and then expound on whether adherents to those specific schools should be disallowed from serving on the SCOTUS? And feel free to pepper your analysis with specific cases to exemplify each of the schools of interpretation.

[sgs89]

But a lot has changed, try getting a justice appointed to the supreme court in the 80's till today and you wont get very far. It was often treated as a reward for what you've done, now it is more about your qualifications. A lot has changed since 1972, in political terms that isn't recent history.



I think you are putting too much emphasis on the last several SCOTUS nominees. Indeed, it was widely rumored that GWB was considering candidates from outside the judiciary for the slot that went to Judge Roberts. Some senators and the Attorney General were all under consideration.

[alonzomourning23]

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the last several SCOTUS nominees. Indeed, it was widely rumored that GWB was considering candidates from outside the judiciary for the slot that went to Judge Roberts. Some senators and the Attorney General were all under consideration.

Considering doesn't mean he realistically would, besides with all the political pressure and coverage put on court nominees, appointing a justice who had no history as a judge would have been politically foolish and would face much stiffer competition.

[MrBadExample]

Considering doesn't mean he realistically would, besides with all the political pressure and coverage put on court nominees, appointing a justice who had no history as a judge would have been politically foolish and would face much stiffer competition.
In all fairness, that wouldn't have been the first time Bush has done something foolish.

[mykevermin]

Well, why don't you explain what you believe to be the relevant schools of constitutional interpretation and then expound on whether adherents to those specific schools should be disallowed from serving on the SCOTUS? And feel free to pepper your analysis with specific cases to exemplify each of the schools of interpretation.

I'll let you do the work, mr. legal jargon pants. You made the accusation, now make the proof.

This isn't Fox News. You don't get to make accusations and follow up by demanding I defend myself. Ball's in your court, slappy.

[Drocket]

But a lot has changed, try getting a justice appointed to the supreme court in the 80's till today and you wont get very far. It was often treated as a reward for what you've done, now it is more about your qualifications.
Yeah, because we all know Roberts definitely has never done anything for the Bush camp.

[alonzomourning23]

Yeah, because we all know Roberts definitely has never done anything for the Bush camp.

Eh, that's not what I meant. He has a history of speaking before the supreme court and he has had some history as a judge, though short.

[sgs89]

I'll let you do the work, mr. legal jargon pants. You made the accusation, now make the proof.

This isn't Fox News. You don't get to make accusations and follow up by demanding I defend myself. Ball's in your court, slappy.

I have neither the desire nor the time to do so.

I think your level of understanding about the judiciary and the SCOTUS confirmation process is perfectly clear by a review of your posts in this thread.

I am not surprised that you are unwilling to get into a debate about legal theory.

[sgs89]

Considering doesn't mean he realistically would, besides with all the political pressure and coverage put on court nominees, appointing a justice who had no history as a judge would have been politically foolish and would face much stiffer competition.

I cannot agree with that. I don't think judicial experience would have been the determining factor.

[mykevermin]

I have neither the desire nor the time to do so.

I think your level of understanding about the judiciary and the SCOTUS confirmation process is perfectly clear by a review of your posts in this thread.

I am not surprised that you are unwilling to get into a debate about legal theory.

I'm not unwilling; I asked you to clarify a point, and you're merely dodging the issue of clarifying your assertions.

I'm not going to admit that I'm knoweldgable of legal theory; this does not mean, however, that I can't argue it. I don't know much about economic theory other than the general basis is in rational choice theory. RCT is a tautological piece of shit in my opinion, so I feel qualified in debating what an economist might have to say, even if my area of expertise is in sociology.

I'll repeat myself. Slowly, as to allow you to dodge the matter yet again.

You.
Made.
The.
Accusation.
Please.
Elaborate.
It.
Is.
Your.
Argument.
To.
Prove.
Not.
Mine.
To.
Defend.

comprende?

[mykevermin]

Really now, sgs, did you come from the Sean Hannity school of debate? It's a rhetorical question, of course, and since I'm coming across as more "foaming at the mouth" than you, the answer is probably "no."

Here's my contention: You made a claim that I was confused about the fact of constitutional interpreation. I asked you to elaborate on it, and you have (1) refused to do so and (2) chide me for my "unwillingness" to debate, all the while you're so busy at life that you have no time to present a cogent argument, yet can respond to every post in this fucking thread (AND reread my prior posts)?

Someone famous once said "bitch, PLEASE!"

Why don't I ask you about your inability to discern criminological theories without telling you what any of them are, and then accuse you of intentionally stifling the debate? Would that make me as cool as you?

[sgs89]

OK, let me put it this way:

One school of thought, associated most closely with Justice Scalia, is that the Constitution should be strictly construed with the original intent of the Framers in mind. Therefore, on the abortion issue, adherents of this school would ask themselves, "where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government (or states, assuming incorporation) cannot proscribe abortion?" The answer: no where. Therefore, the Constitution, which is a limitation on federal (and, after the doctrine of incorporation, state) power, does not prohibit the legislature from criminalizing abortion. Of course, do not forget that the Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Another school of thought, currently most closely associated with Justice Stevens or perhaps Justice Ginsburg, holds that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that must be interpreted in the context of the times. In addition, the Constitution protects a "penumbra" of unspecified rights beyond those specifically protected in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, on the abortion question, adherents of this school of thought would argue that the Constitution includes an implicit right of privacy (even though not specifically articulated) that protects a woman's right to do with her body (and fetus) as she sees fit. Therefore, the Consitution prohibits Congress (and states) from criminalizing abortion.

Now that you understand these different schools of thought (and there are others, to be sure), my question is whether you would deem an adherent of one or the other inappropriate for inclusion on the SCOTUS because you believed that they would decide issues in a way that you thought was inappropriate. In other words, isn't it inappropriate to condemn nominees because, for example, they would not uphold Roe v. Wade (or at least the jurisprudential underpinnings of that decision), even though they have a principled basis for disagreeing with the decision?

[sgs89]

Really now, sgs, did you come from the Sean Hannity school of debate? It's a rhetorical question, of course, and since I'm coming across as more "foaming at the mouth" than you, the answer is probably "no."

Here's my contention: You made a claim that I was confused about the fact of constitutional interpreation. I asked you to elaborate on it, and you have (1) refused to do so and (2) chide me for my "unwillingness" to debate, all the while you're so busy at life that you have no time to present a cogent argument, yet can respond to every post in this fucking thread (AND reread my prior posts)?

Someone famous once said "bitch, PLEASE!"

Why don't I ask you about your inability to discern criminological theories without telling you what any of them are, and then accuse you of intentionally stifling the debate? Would that make me as cool as you?

You spoke too soon, Professor Murder.

[mykevermin]

You spoke too soon, Professor Murder.

If, by "spoke too soon" you mean "pissed and moaned to get you to say something substantive," then I agree with you.

I don't know if their are comparable terms for constitution literalists as there are bible literalist ("essentialists," not to be confused with "fundamentalists"), but the concept of debating the constitution as a literalist document versus a constructionist document isn't that hard to posit.

I know where I stand ideologically, but that means squat in legal circles (not the least of reasons being my exclusion from those circles ;)).

If you'll allow me to usurp the phrases "literalist" and "constructionist" to delineate what seem to be the extremes, then it's merely a matter of framing the argument (a highly complicated matter, to be sure). If Roberts can stay within the framework of these legal perspectives, then if his positions differ from mine, so be it. That's the way democracy is sometimes.

On the other hand, it is important that we understand his regard for the constitution and the ideals of a democracy, and how he would prioritize them in his work obligation as opposed to his faith. This, to me, is a crucial matter, even if it boils down to "can you make your arguments appear to have a legal theory foundation, rather than a religious or otherwise undemocratic partisan base?" Can Roberts do that? He's come this far, hasn't he?

***If you'd rather not read the long version*** I imagine that I don't have a problem with Roberts if he can keep his arguments and perspectives in a legal framework. I have little doubt that he can do that, but I think a severe round of questioning is in order before a decision can be made. In the meantime, approaching a Bush nominee with a healthy deal of skepticism is something that, in my opinion, should be dutifully observed for a myriad of reasons, John Bolton being the most recent example.

I simply want to know more about Roberts. I will say it again: he has the credentials, but I do not know yet if he is qualified. I rescind what I said earlier about his tiny judicial experience. You made a good case that it may not be important. This alone does not qualify him, and I will reserve any further (not counting previous :)) judgment for after hearings.

The Republicans want to grill him now, too, since he evidently did work for Playboy in addition to his pro bono work for the queers.

Thanks for finally elaborating that; it's not rocket science, but it isn't precisely intuitive, either. Now I'm off to go find a good strategy RPG to chew on.

[Drocket]

One school of thought, associated most closely with Justice Scalia, is that the Constitution should be strictly construed with the original intent of the Framers in mind. Therefore, on the abortion issue, adherents of this school would ask themselves, "where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government (or states, assuming incorporation) cannot proscribe abortion?" The answer: no where. Therefore, the Constitution, which is a limitation on federal (and, after the doctrine of incorporation, state) power, does not prohibit the legislature from criminalizing abortion. Of course, do not forget that the Ninth Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I've definitely heard this argument from a number of people, and all I can say is that its probably the single stupidest interpretation of the Constitution I can imagine, especially when it comes from a "conservative". When you look at the original intent of the framers, its pretty damn clear what they meant: "Here's what the Federal government can do - keep your fucking hands off everything else."

Liberals at least violate the intent with the good intention of helping people (and they usually don't subscribe to this interpretation of the Constitution anyway.) For Conservatives to claim they believe this interpretation of the Constitution, then try to parlay it into anti-abortion laws (or 99% of the other stuff Conservatives want to do) is absolutely ridiculous and requires stunning amounts of logic gymnastics.

[sgs89]

mykevermin,

Thanks for the substantive discussion.

I agree with you that Judge Roberts should be questioned. I think he will come across as the erudite and passionate scholar that he is.

I look forward to more debate as the process continues.

[elprincipe]

I've definitely heard this argument from a number of people, and all I can say is that its probably the single stupidest interpretation of the Constitution I can imagine, especially when it comes from a "conservative". When you look at the original intent of the framers, its pretty damn clear what they meant: "Here's what the Federal government can do - keep your fucking hands off everything else."

Liberals at least violate the intent with the good intention of helping people (and they usually don't subscribe to this interpretation of the Constitution anyway.) For Conservatives to claim they believe this interpretation of the Constitution, then try to parlay it into anti-abortion laws (or 99% of the other stuff Conservatives want to do) is absolutely ridiculous and requires stunning amounts of logic gymnastics.

I think you're misunderstanding. Allowing abortion to be outlawed IS "keeping your fucking hands off everything else." The argument he presented was simply that the Constitution didn't prevent abortion from being outlawed, not that it outlaws it.

[Drocket]

I think you're misunderstanding. Allowing abortion to be outlawed IS "keeping your fucking hands off everything else." The argument he presented was simply that the Constitution didn't prevent abortion from being outlawed, not that it outlaws it.

Yes, it DOES prevent abortion from being outlawed (at the federal level, at least) because it doesn't grant that power to the federal government. The Constitution is quite clear that the Federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere, and doesn't fall under any other category that the federal government is given power over, therefore the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate it in any way, shape, or form. Period. End of story.

The reality is that this interpretation stopped being relevant to reality during the Civil War. There are very few people who actually honestly support Strict Constitutionalism anymore - 99% of people who claim to be Strict Constitutionalist are just intellectually lazy and simply use it as a vague justification for whatever it is that they want to do.

[sgs89]

Yes, it DOES prevent abortion from being outlawed (at the federal level, at least) because it doesn't grant that power to the federal government. The Constitution is quite clear that the Federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere, and doesn't fall under any other category that the federal government is given power over, therefore the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate it in any way, shape, or form. Period. End of story.

The reality is that this interpretation stopped being relevant to reality during the Civil War. There are very few people who actually honestly support Strict Constitutionalism anymore - 99% of people who claim to be Strict Constitutionalist are just intellectually lazy and simply use it as a vague justification for whatever it is that they want to do.

But, as you point out, there is no such limitation on STATE power to regulate abortion (at least in the US Constitution). And, in fairness, most attempts at regulating abortion have been through state legislatures, not Congress. So, strict constructionists would say that the Framers nowhere evinced an intent to disallow states from criminalizing abortion.

Also, how about Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution: provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. Does providing for the "general Welfare of the United States" empower Congress to regulate abortion? How about the Commerce Clause?

[sgs89]

The confirmation hearings are just a few weeks away, boys. Buckle your seatbelts, it should be fun.

My prediction: Roberts is confirmed easily.

[alonzomourning23]

The confirmation hearings are just a few weeks away, boys. Buckle your seatbelts, it should be fun.

My prediction: Roberts is confirmed easily.

I was just thinking, if the supreme court struck down roe vs wade AND ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right, with roberts being the deciding vote in both cases, which side would kill him first?

[sgs89]

I was just thinking, if the supreme court struck down roe vs wade AND ruled that gay marriage is a constitutional right, with roberts being the deciding vote in both cases, which side would kill him first?

It would be a dead heat. And would serve to confirm burgeoning rumors that Judge Roberts is gay. Yes, while I don't believe them, those rumors are making the rounds, based on his late marriage, adopted kids, many pictures with other men, etc.

[mykevermin]

It would be a dead heat. And would serve to confirm burgeoning rumors that Judge Roberts is gay. Yes, while I don't believe them, those rumors are making the rounds, based on his late marriage, adopted kids, many pictures with other men, etc.

Where in the world are these rumors circulating at?

[sgs89]

Where in the world are these rumors circulating at?

Among other places, the blog community is abuzz with the rumors. Again, I think they are mainly toungue-in-cheek and I do not believe them.

Then again, he DID attend an all-male prep school.....

[Admiral Ackbar]

Judge Roberts is a grammar Nazi. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/politics/politicsspecial1/29grammar.html?hp&ex=1125374400&en=938627f2e4ce5c8d&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

I thought a lot of you posters would like to read this.

[mykevermin]

Well, of all people who love to criticize Bush appointees, I certainly can't fault a grammarian. He's likely the first of his kind in this administration.

slumgullion, indeed.

[sgs89]

To be fair, President Bush has appointed MANY smart people to various positions. There are, of course, notable exceptions. But, President Bush did not get to where he is today by surrounding himself with stupid people, of that I can assure you.

Judge Roberts will surely be one of the smartest, though.

[MrBadExample]

To be fair, President Bush has appointed MANY smart people to various positions. There are, of course, notable exceptions. But, President Bush did not get to where he is today by surrounding himself with stupid people, of that I can assure you.

Judge Roberts will surely be one of the smartest, though.
How smart can they be when they have to agree with everything Bush does? Whenever someone contradicts him, they are fired or forced out of office. Bush demands loyalty more than intelligence from his people.

This is the brain trust that told us Iraq would be a cake walk, that the war would pay for itself and that the intelligence about WMDs was a slam dunk. Anyone who thought otherwise was ignored. It's hard to be more wrong than that.

[sgs89]

How smart can they be when they have to agree with everything Bush does? Whenever someone contradicts him, they are fired or forced out of office. Bush demands loyalty more than intelligence from his people.

This is the brain trust that told us Iraq would be a cake walk, that the war would pay for itself and that the intelligence about WMDs was a slam dunk. Anyone who thought otherwise was ignored. It's hard to be more wrong than that.

Being wrong (at least so far) and being stupid are two different things. Smart people are often wrong -- it is still too early to determine in the specific example you use whether they were wrong, though.

[niceguyshawne]

Being wrong (at least so far) and being stupid are two different things. Smart people are often wrong -- it is still too early to determine in the specific example you use whether they were wrong, though.


Which part of the example is it too early to determine?

[sgs89]

Which part of the example is it too early to determine?

Whether the war in Iraq will be an abject failure. So far, it is not looking good, but the final report card won't come in for several more years.

[MrBadExample]

Whether the war in Iraq will be an abject failure. So far, it is not looking good, but the final report card won't come in for several more years.
That wasn't one of my points.

[sgs89]

That wasn't one of my points.

Well, it was the general subject matter of your critique.

But, on your specific points, you are correct that the Administration was wrong. There were no WMDs (or at least it doesn't look like there were any) and the war will most definitely NOT pay for itself.

[sgs89]

W just announced that Roberts will be nominated as Chief Justice now that CJ Rehnquist is dead. Great move by W -- Roberts would make a great Chief.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/index.html

Now, on to the speculation about who replaces O'Connor. Early money says Edith Clement. Here's to hoping it is someone else....

[alonzomourning23]

W just announced that Roberts will be nominated as Chief Justice now that CJ Rehnquist is dead. Great move by W -- Roberts would make a great Chief.

I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not.

[sgs89]

I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not.

It is not.

[Dead of Knight]

WTF HE JUST BECAME A JUSTICE!!!! This is bullshit.

[sgs89]

WTF HE JUST BECAME A JUSTICE!!!! This is bullshit.

Actually, he is not yet a Justice at all (he has not yet been confirmed).

But, again, before folks jump to conclusions, please realize that it is NOT uncommon for a NEW justice to be nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice upon the death of the sitting Chief. (Of course, it is also not uncommon for an associate Justice to be elevated to Chief, as Rehnquist was by President Reagan.)

[Rei no Otaku]

It's actually more common for a new Justice to be appointed as Chief, than to have one elevated from within the court.

[Cheese]

Great move by W -- Roberts would make a great Chief.

Personally I'd prefer someone with more bench experience to be chief. Not to mention one whose wife isn't an anti-abortion activist. But we all knew GW would put a conservative on the bench. I'm actually shocked Scalia didn't get it as he's the administrations boy and all.

[E-Z-B]

http://www.dubyasworld.com/dubya-katrina-supreme-court.jpg

[sgs89]

Uh, I hate to break this to you, but Roberts was nominated BEFORE the hurricane. If you are going to launch an attack, at least make it semi-credible.

[camoor]

Uh, I hate to break this to you, but Roberts was nominated BEFORE the hurricane. If you are going to launch an attack, at least make it semi-credible.

Of course he was dude. The gag is that he is controversial, so recent tragic events make this an opportune time to push through an unpopular choice.

I don't necessarily agree (I am undecided at this point), I just wanted to explain the joke to you in terms that you and the other Bush Jr zombie-conservatives can understand.

[sgs89]

Of course he was dude. The gag is that he is controversial, so recent tragic events make this an opportune time to push through an unpopular choice.

I don't necessarily agree (I am undecided at this point), I just wanted to explain the joke to you in terms that you and the other Bush Jr zombie-conservatives can understand.

Wow, I wasn't anticipating this level of misunderstanding. How is Bush using the hurricane to "push through" the Roberts' nomination? That is just silly -- the hearings were scheduled long before the hurricane. If anything, the hurricane has DELAYED the hearings and made them tougher. It is one thing to criticize Bush. It is another thing to do so in such an absurd manner that you prove your own idiocy.

[camoor]

Wow, I wasn't anticipating this level of misunderstanding. How is Bush using the hurricane to "push through" the Roberts' nomination? That is just silly -- the hearings were scheduled long before the hurricane. If anything, the hurricane has DELAYED the hearings and made them tougher. It is one thing to criticize Bush. It is another thing to do so in such an absurd manner that you prove your own idiocy.

LoL I don't agree yet either. Time will tell however, and I wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to use ANYTHING to his advantage, as long as he doesn't have the appearance of impropriety.

[sgs89]

I thought you guys might get a kick out of this letter signed by 170 so-called law professors denouncing the nomination of Judge Roberts.

http://www.geocities.com/e_chemerinsky/robertsoppletter.pdf

It is a complete joke by a few extremely left-wing law professors who dislike Judge Roberts because of their perception of his political views.

[mykevermin]

I thought you guys might get a kick out of this letter signed by 170 so-called law professors denouncing the nomination of Judge Roberts.

http://www.geocities.com/e_chemerinsky/robertsoppletter.pdf

It is a complete joke by a few extremely left-wing law professors who dislike Judge Roberts because of their perception of his political views.

Yeah, professors. What do THEY know? :roll:

You're better than most here at articulating an argument. Perhaps you could refute the claims of these "few" (170 is a few?) professors, instead of simply lambasting them as "left-wing."

What points of contention did they bring up that you find to be incorrect, misleading, or otherwise misstated? What have they ignored that would, in the event that they are correct, make their criticisms moot?

In short, your biases are clearly showing; while you seem to denounce people who already dislike Roberts (which is more of a Pavlovian reaction as a result of previous Bush nominees, IMO), you don't express similar contempt for your own stolid-yet-not-completely-informed position on Roberts. What would it take for you to find Roberts unsuitable for the job?

[sgs89]

Yeah, professors. What do THEY know? :roll:

You're better than most here at articulating an argument. Perhaps you could refute the claims of these "few" (170 is a few?) professors, instead of simply lambasting them as "left-wing."

What points of contention did they bring up that you find to be incorrect, misleading, or otherwise misstated? What have they ignored that would, in the event that they are correct, make their criticisms moot?

In short, your biases are clearly showing; while you seem to denounce people who already dislike Roberts (which is more of a Pavlovian reaction as a result of previous Bush nominees, IMO), you don't express similar contempt for your own stolid-yet-not-completely-informed position on Roberts. What would it take for you to find Roberts unsuitable for the job?

While you may think that the fact that the signatories are law professors entitles them to greater credibility on this issue, the truth is quite the opposite. There is a cadre of extreme left-leaning law professors (indeed, many, if not most, would so qualify) whose views are impacted quite substantially by their political sensibilities. Also, you will note that the professors who signed this letter are, by and large, not legal luminaries and do not teach at the top institutions (with a few notable exceptions). Indeed, only one Harvard Law School (Judge Roberts' alma mater) professor signed on (this notwithstanding HLS' reputation as a liberal bastion).

As for the content of the letter, it suffers from the same failings as most of the attacks on Judge Roberts -- it attempts to take positions he advocated FOR HIS CLIENT and ascribe them to him personally. This is, as we've discussed, invalid.

Furthermore, it also argues that, just because Judge Roberts may have certain views that are not shared by these law professors, he should be disqualified from serving on the SCOTUS. Again, this is a fallacy. The question is whether he can faithfully discharge his duties -- there is no evidence that he cannot. The fact that you might disagree with him on certain points of law does not mean that he is unable to act in good faith as a jurist.

Finally, Professor Murder, please be aware that I am not a Bush supporter. I support Judge Roberts because I think he is among the most qualified individuals to serve as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. He is smart, well-reasoned, and faithful to the Constitution. The views of 170 partisan law professors cannot change that.

[mykevermin]

While you may think that the fact that the signatories are law professors entitles them to greater credibility on this issue, the truth is quite the opposite. There is a cadre of extreme left-leaning law professors (indeed, many, if not most, would so qualify) whose views are impacted quite substantially by their political sensibilities. Also, you will note that the professors who signed this letter are, by and large, not legal luminaries and do not teach at the top institutions (with a few notable exceptions). Indeed, only one Harvard Law School (Judge Roberts' alma mater) professor signed on (this notwithstanding HLS' reputation as a liberal bastion).

As for the content of the letter, it suffers from the same failings as most of the attacks on Judge Roberts -- it attempts to take positions he advocated FOR HIS CLIENT and ascribe them to him personally. This is, as we've discussed, invalid.

Furthermore, it also argues that, just because Judge Roberts may have certain views that are not shared by these law professors, he should be disqualified from serving on the SCOTUS. Again, this is a fallacy. The question is whether he can faithfully discharge his duties -- there is no evidence that he cannot. The fact that you might disagree with him on certain points of law does not mean that he is unable to act in good faith as a jurist.

Finally, Professor Murder, please be aware that I am not a Bush supporter. I support Judge Roberts because I think he is among the most qualified individuals to serve as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. He is smart, well-reasoned, and faithful to the Constitution. The views of 170 partisan law professors cannot change that.

You managed to spend a good deal of time repeating that which you've already claimed.

I'm curious how you feel about their assertion that his positions place a great deal of deference and authority in the hands of police and other authorities, as well as the president, while also constraining the role and scope of congress's capabilities? That's a pretty strong claim for them to make.

Since he was a lawyer/legal consultant up until the past 2 years, I imagine that you'll blow off any claim of his ideology, instead asserting that he's merely serving his client. Which proves a desperate need for a round of questioning at the hands of congress (even moreso if he's to be installed as CJ).

I'm also curious at how you came to realize his allegiance to the constitution (and is he a literal or figurative interpreter?), since everything he's evidently done thus far is client service. Has he amounted to any significant decisions as the judge of the court of appeals? What are they?

[sgs89]

You managed to spend a good deal of time repeating that which you've already claimed.

I'm curious how you feel about their assertion that his positions place a great deal of deference and authority in the hands of police and other authorities, as well as the president, while also constraining the role and scope of congress's capabilities? That's a pretty strong claim for them to make.

Since he was a lawyer/legal consultant up until the past 2 years, I imagine that you'll blow off any claim of his ideology, instead asserting that he's merely serving his client. Which proves a desperate need for a round of questioning at the hands of congress (even moreso if he's to be installed as CJ).

I'm also curious at how you came to realize his allegiance to the constitution (and is he a literal or figurative interpreter?), since everything he's evidently done thus far is client service. Has he amounted to any significant decisions as the judge of the court of appeals? What are they?

Professor Murder,

Their assertion that Judge Roberts advocates a strong executive branch is unsurprising when they cite work he did ON BEHALF OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. I cannot overstate the fallacy with equating one's work on behalf of a client with someone's personal views. I know you say that I am repeating myself, but that is only because all of these attacks against Roberts are the same.

Insofar as Roberts' narrow view of congressional power to regulate affairs in the states is concerned, it all has to do with one's view of the Commerce Clause. For a long time, the courts took a VERY expansive view of that clause -- allowing the federal government to regulate virtually anything, no matter how tangential the connection to interstate commerce. Lately, the SCOTUS has begun to shift to a more narrow view of that power. Judge Roberts is in line with that view. Again, his view of the Commerce Clause is, in a sense, immaterial to whether he is qualified to serve as CJ. No one doubts that he has a legitimate view of the Clause, even if it is not the one to which you subscribe.

As for my belief that he will faithfully interpret the Constitution, all you need to do is go look at his opinions on the DC Circuit. They are not that difficult to find.

[62t]

sgs89, just wondering what you thoughts on alberto gonzales as a candidate to replace o'connor

[sgs89]

sgs89, just wondering what you thoughts on alberto gonzales as a candidate to replace o'connor

Frankly, I am not a big fan of Attorney General Gonzales. I think there are many more qualified candidates. He is not a legal luminary by any means.

[mykevermin]

As for my belief that he will faithfully interpret the Constitution, all you need to do is go look at his opinions on the DC Circuit. They are not that difficult to find.

You had built a great deal of credibility in my eyes, but since you seem to be dodging this question, rather than answering it (as my question, quoted below, asked about your epiphany of Robert's qualifications based on his treatment of the constitution, and not some objective standard that may or may not exist). I'm not so sure about that credibility anymore, FWIW (which may not be much).

I'm also curious at how you came to realize his allegiance to the constitution (and is he a literal or figurative interpreter?), since everything he's evidently done thus far is client service. Has he amounted to any significant decisions as the judge of the court of appeals? What are they?

[sgs89]

You had built a great deal of credibility in my eyes, but since you seem to be dodging this question, rather than answering it (as my question, quoted below, asked about your epiphany of Robert's qualifications based on his treatment of the constitution, and not some objective standard that may or may not exist). I'm not so sure about that credibility anymore, FWIW (which may not be much).

Well, I am telling you where you can find the evidence that I have reviewed to draw that conclusion. The evidence is in his opinions on the DC Circuit. If you are not interested in reviewing those, that is your choice. But please don't act like I have some how failed in my task.

I have appreciated, though, your willingness to engage in a reasoned debate and seemingly to change your position as you gather more information. That is commendable. I look forward to more discussion.

[mykevermin]

And you've yet to tell me if you consider him to be a constitutional literalist or a more interpretive type.

I'll try to look around today, but I found out I am incredibly deep in work; I evidently have far more to do today than waste tax dollars.

[sgs89]

And you've yet to tell me if you consider him to be a constitutional literalist or a more interpretive type.

I'll try to look around today, but I found out I am incredibly deep in work; I evidently have far more to do today than waste tax dollars.

I apologize for the "wasting tax dollars" cheap shot.

As between a strict constructionist and a "Ginsburg-esque expansionist," Judge Roberts is more the former than the latter. That is to say, he interprets the Constitution at a textual level, attempting to keep in mind the intent of the Framers.

[mykevermin]

Don't worry 'bout cheap shots.

Thanks for your thoughts; I can't say I'm thrilled to see another literalist (though it would have bothered me more had Rehnquist lived longer), but being a literalist doesn't disqualify one from being a justice.

Regrettably. ;)

[CaseyRyback]

Fox News Alert: John Roberts is a gentlemen

The daily show has been on fire lately with pointing out retarded things like this.

[sgs89]

And so it begins.

Roberts' confirmation hearings begin today. Should be fun to watch. Wonder if there will be any fireworks?

My prediction: Confirmation as Chief Justice.

[sgs89]

No one is interested in the confirmation hearings, huh? No one is interested in hearing Judge Roberts express his views? Or in the questions being asked?

Hmmm, I guess this just confirms my suspicion that all the naysayers were not interested in the merits, but rather in a knee-jerk reaction to another (albeit major) Bush appointment.

Kind of a disappointment, frankly.

PS If you ARE interested in listening and reaching an INFORMED opinion, go to www.npr.org and check it out live.

[niceguyshawne]

No one is interested in the confirmation hearings, huh? No one is interested in hearing Judge Roberts express his views? Or in the questions being asked?

Hmmm, I guess this just confirms my suspicion that all the naysayers were not interested in the merits, but rather in a knee-jerk reaction to another (albeit major) Bush appointment.

Kind of a disappointment, frankly.

PS If you ARE interested in listening and reaching an INFORMED opinion, go to www.npr.org and check it out live.


It is already a foregone conclusion that he will be confirmed and from what I've seen, he has not expressed his view on anything thus far and likely won't.

[sgs89]

It is already a foregone conclusion that he will be confirmed and from what I've seen, he has not expressed his view on anything thus far and likely won't.

A number of posters on here (read: Professor Murder) have indicated, though, that they would withhold judgment pending the confirmation process and "vigorous questioning." Now that this is happening, I am interested to hear their thoughts.

Professor Murder?

[evilmax17]

It is already a foregone conclusion that he will be confirmed and from what I've seen, he has not expressed his view on anything thus far and likely won't.
Right.

I watched today for about 45 minutes, but then I realized that little-to-nothing of substance was actually being said. It was like I was listening to people talk about nothing in a language that I didn't know.

[mykevermin]

A number of posters on here (read: Professor Murder) have indicated, though, that they would withhold judgment pending the confirmation process and "vigorous questioning." Now that this is happening, I am interested to hear their thoughts.

Professor Murder?

I'm fuckin' busy, what? I'll get around to it. I can form an opinion now or a month from now. It won't have any bearing on his inevitable confirmation.

Nice of you to recommend npr, though.

[sgs89]

I'm fuckin' busy, what? I'll get around to it. I can form an opinion now or a month from now. It won't have any bearing on his inevitable confirmation.

Nice of you to recommend npr, though.

More government-funded studies, huh?

NPR all the way, baby.

[mykevermin]

Nope. Studying for doctoral exams. Even better :cry:

[mykevermin]

Well, I must admit that, from what I've read (90 pages of transcipts at NYT!!!, not that I've read near all of them), congress is battering him about abortion too much, giving off the appearance that they don't care about his qualifications, or even his positions; rather, it is just one position that they seem to care about: Roe V. Wade.

Roberts has shown himself to be courteous and a professional, though some of his answers are strangely avoidant. I raised my eyebrow at a few of his answers.

All in all, though, he's taking it like a champ, handling himself well, and most importantly (considering his discussion of stare decisis (sp?)), given the indication that he's not quick on the draw in making decisions that would be contrary to long-standing judicial precedents.

I'm still hesitant to say this, but it seems that, until congress gets off of abortion, I'm not gonna wade through 90 fuckin' pages of the same question worded differently. I will (hesitantly) concede that Roberts should be confirmed for a Supreme Court seat (I don't know enough to say he is de facto qualified for the Chief Justice chair, so I won't say either way). He had the academic qualifications, and he seems to be well suited for the position.

I dare say that Bush has made a good decision here. Time will tell if Roberts is a wolf in sheep's clothing (that is, if he's simply bullshitting all of us in the public and the government), and will eventually reveal himself to be a true Bush crony. I hope that is not the case, because that would damage the credibility and testimony of every single person following Roberts who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

I full expect that not to happen.

[sgs89]

Well, I must admit that, from what I've read (90 pages of transcipts at NYT!!!, not that I've read near all of them), congress is battering him about abortion too much, giving off the appearance that they don't care about his qualifications, or even his positions; rather, it is just one position that they seem to care about: Roe V. Wade.

Roberts has shown himself to be courteous and a professional, though some of his answers are strangely avoidant. I raised my eyebrow at a few of his answers.

All in all, though, he's taking it like a champ, handling himself well, and most importantly (considering his discussion of stare decisis (sp?)), given the indication that he's not quick on the draw in making decisions that would be contrary to long-standing judicial precedents.

I'm still hesitant to say this, but it seems that, until congress gets off of abortion, I'm not gonna wade through 90 fuckin' pages of the same question worded differently. I will (hesitantly) concede that Roberts should be confirmed for a Supreme Court seat (I don't know enough to say he is de facto qualified for the Chief Justice chair, so I won't say either way). He had the academic qualifications, and he seems to be well suited for the position.

I dare say that Bush has made a good decision here. Time will tell if Roberts is a wolf in sheep's clothing (that is, if he's simply bullshitting all of us in the public and the government), and will eventually reveal himself to be a true Bush crony. I hope that is not the case, because that would damage the credibility and testimony of every single person following Roberts who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

I full expect that not to happen.

Thanks for your insightful thoughts. I really do commend you (for whatever that is worth) for taking the time to reach an informed judgment about this issue. Early on, you seemed to "rush to judgment" because Judge Roberts was a Bush appointee. It is admirable that you would take the time to become better informed and change your views.

Your point about a "wolf in sheep's clothing" is valid -- we do not know for sure whether Judge Roberts will continue to comport himself in the manner he has to date. But, I agree with you that it seems unlikely he will all of a sudden change his stripes.

I recommend that you read/listen to the hearings -- not all of it had to do with abortion. There were many interesting exchanges on the Commerce Clause (Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce), Brown v. The Board of Education (end of the "separate but equal" doctrine), and the First Amendment.

While Judge Roberts certainly did not answer all questions, he has been much more forthcoming than many previous SCOTUS nominees. You understand that, as a matter of judicial ethics, a SCOTUS nominee should not discuss particular cases (or legal issues) likely to come before the Court.

And, remember, we will have this to do all over again in relatively short order. I can't wait!

[elprincipe]

Actually, Feinstein has been the one most pressing him on abortion. If you ignore her lines of questioning you can probably ignore most of the abortion stuff.

And I think, sgs89, that some of the Democratic senators would disagree with you about Roberts being extraordinarily forthcoming.

Personally, I think he comes off as someone highly intelligent and obviously imminently qualified. I just hope he lives up to expectations. And yes, he'll be easily confirmed. I think everyone knows that at this point.

[sgs89]

Give Judge Roberts some credit for his humor, as revealed by this exchange:

SCHUMER: [T]his process is getting a little more absurd the further we move. You agree we should be finding out your philosophy and method of legal reasoning, modesty, stability, but when we try to find out what modesty and stability mean, what your philosophy means, we don't get any answers.

It's as if I asked you: What kind of movies do you like? Tell me two or three good movies. And you say, I like movies with good acting. I like movies with good directing. I like movies with good cinematography. And I ask you, No, give me an example of a good movie. You don't name one. I say, Give me an example of a bad movie. You won't name one. Then I ask you if you like Casablanca, and you respond by saying, Lots of people like 'Casablanca.' (LAUGHTER) You tell me it's widely settled that Casablanca is one of the great movies.

SPECTER: Senator Schumer, now that your time is over, are you asking him a question?

SCHUMER: Yes. (LAUGHTER) I am saying, sir -- I am making a plea here. I hope we're going to continue this for a while, that within the confines of what you think is appropriate and proper, you try to be a little more forthcoming with us in terms of trying to figure out what kind of justice you will become.

SPECTER: We will now take a 15-minute break, reconvene at 4:25.

ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, could I address some of the...

SPECTER: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I didn't hear any question, Judge Roberts...

ROBERTS: Well, there were several along the way... I'll be very succinct.

SPECTER: You are privileged to comment. This is coming out of his next round, if there is one. (LAUGHTER)

ROBERTS: First, Dr. Zhivago and North By Northwest... (LAUGHTER)

[Drocket]

As far as I can see, the only real thing that's come out of these hearings is that there's an absolutely stunning number of ways to say "I refuse to answer that question." If being able to avoid ever answering any question is a good quality in a Supreme Court justice, then Roberts is more than qualified. Aside from that, I don't think anyone knows any more about Roberts than they did going into this.

[mykevermin]

North by Northwest is a classic.

Something that concerns me isn't what Roberts is saying or implying, but the lack of reaction instead. It seems very strange to me that Roberts (from what I've read, anyway) isn't getting *any* shit from the right in regards to his discussion on privacy rights (which is all, in the end, coded discourse for abortion rights).

This nominee and the next nominee are the Republicans Party's major chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, and many of them would love nothing more than doing just that. Abandoning my opinions for a moment, it seems very awkward to me that Roberts' passive acceptance of Roe v. Wade as a standing legal precedent, his view on privacy rights, and other comments seem to indicate that he will *not* be the golden boy to make abortion illegal again are all strangely met with silence by vocal opponents of abortion rights.

Comparing that to the Republican outlash at those such as Arlen Specter, who embraced embryonic stem cell research (or federal funding of it, anyway) earlier this year. Without a doubt, Roberts will have far more power as Chief Justice than Specter currently does, and the implications of his placement on enforcing right-wing ideology (in the sense of his judicial interpretations, anyway) are far greater. So, the apparent lack of outrage on those people (no matter how large or small, they're *always* some of the most vocal) who specifically want Roe v. Wade to be overturned is fascinating, and truly, kind of disturbing.

Just a thought.

[sgs89]

North by Northwest is a classic.

Something that concerns me isn't what Roberts is saying or implying, but the lack of reaction instead. It seems very strange to me that Roberts (from what I've read, anyway) isn't getting *any* shit from the right in regards to his discussion on privacy rights (which is all, in the end, coded discourse for abortion rights).

This nominee and the next nominee are the Republicans Party's major chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, and many of them would love nothing more than doing just that. Abandoning my opinions for a moment, it seems very awkward to me that Roberts' passive acceptance of Roe v. Wade as a standing legal precedent, his view on privacy rights, and other comments seem to indicate that he will *not* be the golden boy to make abortion illegal again are all strangely met with silence by vocal opponents of abortion rights.

Comparing that to the Republican outlash at those such as Arlen Specter, who embraced embryonic stem cell research (or federal funding of it, anyway) earlier this year. Without a doubt, Roberts will have far more power as Chief Justice than Specter currently does, and the implications of his placement on enforcing right-wing ideology (in the sense of his judicial interpretations, anyway) are far greater. So, the apparent lack of outrage on those people (no matter how large or small, they're *always* some of the most vocal) who specifically want Roe v. Wade to be overturned is fascinating, and truly, kind of disturbing.

Just a thought.

I think you raise a good point. I don't think Roberts will be the architect to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is not a radical conservative. And I have no doubt that some on the far right are disappointed to hear him express the belief that the Constitution does protect a privacy interest.

That being said, I think both sides are just a little unsure on how we will rule on these issues. And that, kind sir, is the way it should be. The relevant question, after all, is: Is Judge Roberts qualified? Not, Will he overturn Roe v. Wade. The answer to the former question is an unambiguous "yes."

[mykevermin]

The relevant question, after all, is: Is Judge Roberts qualified? Not, Will he overturn Roe v. Wade. The answer to the former question is an unambiguous "yes."

That's been established here. I will hesistantly say (because I have no data) that most people are examining this in regards to his positions (both on the left and the right). In other words, he is being treated as an election candidate. I don't think, after the discussion here, that this is the correct way to examine him, but rather this is the approach regardless.

[niceguyshawne]

As far as I can see, the only real thing that's come out of these hearings is that there's an absolutely stunning number of ways to say "I refuse to answer that question." If being able to avoid ever answering any question is a good quality in a Supreme Court justice, then Roberts is more than qualified. Aside from that, I don't think anyone knows any more about Roberts than they did going into this.


I am going to try this at my next job interview.

[Drocket]

Something that concerns me isn't what Roberts is saying or implying, but the lack of reaction instead. It seems very strange to me that Roberts (from what I've read, anyway) isn't getting *any* shit from the right in regards to his discussion on privacy rights (which is all, in the end, coded discourse for abortion rights).

That's because they already know for a fact that he's going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. There shouldn't be any question in any rational person's mind that that's his position on the matter. All his dancing around Stare Decisis isn't going to change anything. Those taking his position on Stare Decisis as any sort of reassurance about keeping RvW are simply deluding themselves. First off, so far, all Roberts has particularly said about stare decisis is giving a textbook definition of it, and acknowledging that its, in general, a pretty important legal principle. He's said nothing of substance on his actual views of the matter, and certainly not how he thinks it should be applied to real-world cases. Secondly, both Scalia and Thomas use stare decisis as a reason to OVERTURN Roe v. Wade. The reasoning goes: the Roe v. Wade decision is a 'modern' one - abortion has traditionally been illegal. In order to keep things fair and consistent, then, abortion should be illegal.

[sgs89]

That's because they already know for a fact that he's going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. There shouldn't be any question in any rational person's mind that that's his position on the matter. All his dancing around Stare Decisis isn't going to change anything. Those taking his position on Stare Decisis as any sort of reassurance about keeping RvW are simply deluding themselves. First off, so far, all Roberts has particularly said about stare decisis is giving a textbook definition of it, and acknowledging that its, in general, a pretty important legal principle. He's said nothing of substance on his actual views of the matter, and certainly not how he thinks it should be applied to real-world cases. Secondly, both Scalia and Thomas use stare decisis as a reason to OVERTURN Roe v. Wade. The reasoning goes: the Roe v. Wade decision is a 'modern' one - abortion has traditionally been illegal. In order to keep things fair and consistent, then, abortion should be illegal.

What evidence do you have -- evidence, not idle speculation -- that it is a foregone conclusion that Judge Roberts will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

[Drocket]

That being said, I think both sides are just a little unsure on how we will rule on these issues.
A few idiots on both sides, perhaps. Anyone with half a brain knows perfectly well his position.

And that, kind sir, is the way it should be. The relevant question, after all, is: Is Judge Roberts qualified? Not, Will he overturn Roe v. Wade. The answer to the former question is an unambiguous "yes."
Let me give you a theoretical example:

Lets say that you work for NASA, or some private satellite company. You're interviewing a scientist/engineer to help you design rockets to power your space flights. This scientist/engineer has degrees from major universities out the wazoo. He also has a long history of claiming that gravity is caused by tiny little blue creatures (too small to see) who grab on to things and pull them to the ground, and several published papers theorizing ways to revolutionize space flight by giving those little critters itty-bitty cheese wheels in exchange for their help in take-off. During the interview, he absolutely refuses to answer any questions about anything beyond the weather. Do you hire this man?

If you believe that Roe v. Wade is a correct decision, based on firm legal standing, then you invariably must believe that people who would want to overturn that decision are wrong. If they are wrong, they are clearly not qualified, no matter how many fancy diplomas they have.

[Drocket]

What evidence do you have -- evidence, not idle speculation -- that it is a foregone conclusion that Judge Roberts will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Well, for one, his ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL HISTORY as a lawyer...

[sgs89]

If you believe that Roe v. Wade is a correct decision, based on firm legal standing, then you invariably must believe that people who would want to overturn that decision are wrong. If they are wrong, they are clearly not qualified, no matter how many fancy diplomas they have.

I strongly disagree with you on this point. That is not the relevant question. And you should know that prospective judges should NOT answer questions about legal issues that are likely to come before them. That would be highly inappropriate and would prejudice the administration of justice. Judge Roberts has acted no differently in this respect than any other SCOTUS nominee.

[sgs89]

Well, for one, his ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL HISTORY as a lawyer...

Such as?

[Drocket]

I strongly disagree with you on this point. That is not the relevant question. And you should know that prospective judges should NOT answer questions about legal issues that are likely to come before them. That would be highly inappropriate and would prejudice the administration of justice. Judge Roberts has acted no differently in this respect than any other SCOTUS nominee.

Lets try a slightly different question here: Scalia and Thomas have both, at different times, proudly announced that they're absolutely anti-abortion. Not during their confirmation hearings, of course - that would have been politically damaging - but afterwards, in a "Haha, we're in now, you can't do anything, fuck you" kind of way. Their minds are both absolutely made up on this matter. So does this mean they're both prejudiced in any case they may hear? Should they recuse themselves in any case that may come up before the Supreme Court regarding abortion? If it were possible, should they be removed from office, since they're CLEARLY not going to give a fair hearing on abortion cases that come before them?

What exactly is the different if Roberts admits now that he's anti-abortion than if he admits it in a month instead, other than the fact that it would be too late to do anything about his bias?

[sgs89]

Lets try a slightly different question here: Scalia and Thomas have both, at different times, proudly announced that they're absolutely anti-abortion. Not during their confirmation hearings, of course - that would have been politically damaging - but afterwards, in a "Haha, we're in now, you can't do anything, fuck you" kind of way. Their minds are both absolutely made up on this matter. So does this mean they're both prejudiced in any case they may hear? Should they recuse themselves in any case that may come up before the Supreme Court regarding abortion? If it were possible, should they be removed from office, since they're CLEARLY not going to give a fair hearing on abortion cases that come before them?

What exactly is the different if Roberts admits now that he's anti-abortion than if he admits it in a month instead, other than the fact that it would be too late to do anything about his bias?

Well, I agree with you that a SCOTUS Justice should NOT talk publicly about specific legal issues that are likely to come before the Court (at least insofar as their views have not already been established in written precedent). If Justice Scalia or Thomas were talking about their PERSONAL views of whether abortion was a good or bad thing (as opposed to whether the Constitution forbids any state restriction on abortion), that is a slightly different issue, though I agree with you that it is undesirable.

I do think, however, that a nominee should not be expected to answer specific questions about how they would decide particular legal issues -- that is an inappropriate intrusion into the judicial process.

[Drocket]

Such as?

I could quite eacily present you with DOZENS of cases in which Roberts argued against abortion. At that point, you'd simply say that he was representing his clients, and that those cases don't necessarily represent Robert's personal views. And you'd be right. So we'll skip that step.

The question, though, if why Roberts ALWAYS represented the anti-abortion side in any case that came his way. I honestly don't think you'd find a single case in his history in which he took the pro-choice side. If he was merely accepting jobs/cases as they came along, the two sides SHOULD be at least semi-equally represented. That isn't the case, though - his case history tilts very strongly, pretty much 100%, towards anti-abortion causes. Far more so than can reasonably be claimed as random chance. Which means he was picking and choosing his cases. Since it seems unlikely that he would select, 100% of the time, the side that he disagrees with, the end conclusion is pretty clear: Roberts chose to defend anti-abortion cases because that's the position that he personally believes in.

[Drocket]

Well, I agree with you that a SCOTUS Justice should NOT talk publicly about specific legal issues that are likely to come before the Court (at least insofar as their views have not already been established in written precedent).

But why exactly does it matter whether those views are 'written precedent' or not? Getting off abortion, since that's a topic that's been done to death... Lets try flag burning, as an example. Lets say Roberts makes a statement during his hearings that he believes that the US Constitution does not protect flag burning as a legitimate form of free speech. According to you, this is a bad thing because it forever biases him and the court in any future flag burning cases they may hear.

Instead, he waits until he gets on the court, and after hearing a flag burning case, he writes that he believes the US Constitution does not protect flag burning(yadda, yadda, yadda.) This, according to you, is just fine. It doesn't cause a problem in any future flag burning cases that he may hear.

What exactly is the difference? The fact that exactly one case will get a 'fair' hearing (and everyone who comes before him after that is SOL?)

[sgs89]

But why exactly does it matter whether those views are 'written precedent' or not? Getting off abortion, since that's a topic that's been done to death... Lets try flag burning, as an example. Lets say Roberts makes a statement during his hearings that he believes that the US Constitution does not protect flag burning as a legitimate form of free speech. According to you, this is a bad thing because it forever biases him and the court in any future flag burning cases they may hear.

Instead, he waits until he gets on the court, and after hearing a flag burning case, he writes that he believes the US Constitution does not protect flag burning(yadda, yadda, yadda.) This, according to you, is just fine. It doesn't cause a problem in any future flag burning cases that he may hear.

What exactly is the difference? The fact that exactly one case will get a 'fair' hearing (and everyone who comes before him after that is SOL?)

The difference is that in the first example, I assume you are hypothesizing that the issue is not a settled issue. Therefore, it would do harm to the administration of justice for Judge Roberts to reveal his views in that scenario.

In the second scenario you posit, a case directly on that issue would have been decided, and it would no longer be an open question. It is less troubling for a judge to give his views on that issue. And, in fairness, Judge Roberts did exactly that on settled issues, including Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. The Board of Education, and Griswold v. Connecticut.

[Drocket]

The difference is that in the first example, I assume you are hypothesizing that the issue is not a settled issue. Therefore, it would do harm to the administration of justice for Judge Roberts to reveal his views in that scenario.

In the second scenario you posit, a case directly on that issue would have been decided, and it would no longer be an open question. It is less troubling for a judge to give his views on that issue. And, in fairness, Judge Roberts did exactly that on settled issues, including Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. The Board of Education, and Griswold v. Connecticut.

But Roe v. Wade is a settled issue, right? I'm not sure what harm there would be in him giving his opinion on a 30 year old settled case. Unless, of course, he has every intention of overturning that case if and when given a chance, and all his (non)talk about stare decisis is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover for that.

[sgs89]

But Roe v. Wade is a settled issue, right? I'm not sure what harm there would be in him giving his opinion on a 30 year old settled case. Unless, of course, he has every intention of overturning that case if and when given a chance, and all his (non)talk about stare decisis is nothing more than a smokescreen to cover for that.

Not really. The Court has recently faced, and will continue to face, challenges to the boundaries of Roe v. Wade, if not the holding itself. It would be inappropriate for him to comment on that case and the principles articulated therein.

[Drocket]

But you still haven't answered my general question: as you've admitted, important issues tend to come before the Supreme Court not once but many times. Roberts, if confirmed, will likely be on the court for decades, and is likely to hear Roe v. Wade cases a dozen times or more. Your position is that if he states his position on it now, he'll forever taint any future cases on it that he handles. So how is that substantially different than if we wait a year, let him hear the first Roe v. Wade case, and THEN give his opinion? Isn't every Roe v. Wade-related case that he hears after that going to be forever tainted because his opinion is out in the open? (Assuming, of course, that he doesn't spend the rest of his life avoiding any and all questions...)

[sgs89]

But you still haven't answered my general question: as you've admitted, important issues tend to come before the Supreme Court not once but many times. Roberts, if confirmed, will likely be on the court for decades, and is likely to hear Roe v. Wade cases a dozen times or more. Your position is that if he states his position on it now, he'll forever taint any future cases on it that he handles. So how is that substantially different than if we wait a year, let him hear the first Roe v. Wade case, and THEN give his opinion? Isn't every Roe v. Wade-related case that he hears after that going to be forever tainted because his opinion is out in the open? (Assuming, of course, that he doesn't spend the rest of his life avoiding any and all questions...)

Well, for starters, his views on particular issues are not necessarily germane to the confirmation process. What is germane is whether he is (a) qualified and (b) able and willing to faithfully discharge his duties. Whether he agrees with you on a specific legal issue is really immaterial, just as it is immaterial whether I might agree with then-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsberg's positions on specific legal issues.

In essence, you are asking that Judge Roberts give an advisory opinion on a legal issue - something that is without question anathema to our system. Once he decides a particular issue, that issue will not, in all likelihood, be presented to him again. Future cases will present different, though related, issues. So, I do think there is a meaningful distinction between asking the nominee his views on a specific pending legal issue and waiting for his written decision once he has heard the specific case.

[Drocket]

Well, for starters, his views on particular issues are not necessarily germane to the confirmation process.[quote]
No, but the processes by which he makes decisions are. It would therefore be useful to examine how he goes about making decisions. The best way I can think of to do this is to have his give his opinions about some cases.

[quote]What is germane is whether he is (a) qualified and
That's what we're attempting to determine. The fact that he won't answer any question beyond 'hows the weather?' and 'please state the textbook definition of stare decisis' makes that rather difficult.

(b) able and willing to faithfully discharge his duties.
Part of his duties is being able to put aside person feelings and previous cases, and make determinations based soley on the facts of the case in front of him. Somehow, though, if he accidentily lets slip any judgement of any sort of case based on the evidence that he knows at this point in time, it'll forever corrupt his judgement on related cases. These 2 things seem entirely incompatible. If he's unable to give his opinion on a topic that he's been working on for 20 years because doing so will mean he has to stick with that decision forever, then he's clearly unable to do the duties the job requires.

In essence, you are asking that Judge Roberts give an advisory opinion on a legal issue - something that is without question anathema to our system.
He's been giving his opinion professionally for 20 years, and he's applying for a job in which he'll be giving his opinion until his dying day. Getting his opinion seems somewhat relevant in his job interview, don't you think?

Once he decides a particular issue, that issue will not, in all likelihood, be presented to him again. Future cases will present different, though related, issues. So, I do think there is a meaningful distinction between asking the nominee his views on a specific pending legal issue and waiting for his written decision once he has heard the specific case.
We're not asking his opinion on a specific pending legal issue: we're asking his opinion on a 30 year old established decision. Sure, related issues may and will come up, but the specific case certainly isn't going to.

[sgs89]

All hail the new Chief.

Chief Justice Roberts, has a nice ring to it.

Confirmed 78-22. The 22 should be ashamed for such a blatantly political vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/roberts.nomination/index.html

[niceguyshawne]

Dude, you are WAYYYY too into this. Those 22 who voted against should be ashamed of themselves for actually having a backbone, huh?

[alonzomourning23]

How did hillary vote?

[sgs89]

How did hillary vote?

She voted against Roberts. Not really a surprise.

[sgs89]

Dude, you are WAYYYY too into this. Those 22 who voted against should be ashamed of themselves for actually having a backbone, huh?

It is not a question of having a backbone. I don't think anyone would accuse Chuck Schumer of having a backbone.

The point is that they were purely political votes. After all, Justice Ginsburg, who is MUCH more "radical" than Roberts, was confirmed by something like 97-3.

The confirmation decision should not be made on the basis of politics. It should be made on the basis of qualifications. On that score, Roberts should have been confirmed 100-0.

[alonzomourning23]

She voted against Roberts. Not really a surprise.

She should have voted for him. Disapointing really, it doesn't seem like a good political move, especially since there isn't much debate over whether the democratic base would support her anyway. She should be trying to show how she can be bipartisan and how she's a moderate.

Though, on a personal level, I'm glad she voted against.

[ZarathosNY]

All hail the new Chief.

Chief Justice Roberts, has a nice ring to it.

Confirmed 78-22. The 22 should be ashamed for such a blatantly political vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/roberts.nomination/index.html


Those 78 should be ashamed of themselves for voting in someone who only has TWO years experience as a judge.

[E-Z-B]

So nothing's changed in the Supreme Court.

The real battle is the next nominee. The democrats are choosing which fights to pick.

[evilmax17]

I was just thinking back to my grade school Social Studies class, and how the Executive/Legislative/Judiciary branches were set up for a "checks and balances" system.

Executive: check!
Legislative: check!
Judiciary: check!

Well, Republicans have the "check" part down, but that "balance" thing is a whole 'nother issue. Hrm.

[sgs89]

Those 78 should be ashamed of themselves for voting in someone who only has TWO years experience as a judge.

Please see the earlier discussion about judicial experience being neither required nor necessary for SCOTUS nominees. As but one example, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was nominated and confirmed with no judicial experience.

Roberts clearly was well-qualified for the job -- perhaps more so than anyone else.

[alonzomourning23]

Please see the earlier discussion about judicial experience being neither required nor necessary for SCOTUS nominees. As but one example, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was nominated and confirmed with no judicial experience.

Roberts clearly was well-qualified for the job -- perhaps more so than anyone else.

But, recently, experience has been an issue. The process has evolved, as have many things in this country. But, also, wanting a judge with more than minimal judicial experience is hardly an unreasonable request.

[sgs89]

So nothing's changed in the Supreme Court.

The real battle is the next nominee. The democrats are choosing which fights to pick.

I agree with this statement.

The next pick -- which should come tomorrow -- will be VERY interesting.

PepsiCo GC Larry Thompson?

White House Counsel Harriet Meirs?

Dare we dream, Judge Luttig?

Should be interesting...

[sgs89]

But, recently, experience has been an issue. The process has evolved, as have many things in this country. But, also, wanting a judge with more than minimal judicial experience is hardly an unreasonable request.

I agree, but you must admit that Roberts is well-qualified notwithstanding his two-years of appellate judicial experience.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Those 78 should be ashamed of themselves for voting in someone who only has TWO years experience as a judge.

So how does it feel to be on the losing end of an argument with 78 Senators and the American Bar Association?

Are you going to tell us you're far more qualified and able in the realm of legal and political matters than they are?

[alonzomourning23]

So how does it feel to be on the losing end of an argument with 78 Senators and the American Bar Association?

Are you going to tell us you're far more qualified and able in the realm of legal and political matters than they are?

It's no different than arguing against abortion or other issues that the majority support, and the supreme court ruled one.

[ZarathosNY]

So how does it feel to be on the losing end of an argument with 78 Senators and the American Bar Association?

How does it feel to be consistantly shown to be wrong on this board PAD?

Are you going to tell us you're far more qualified and able in the realm of legal and political matters than they are?

No, I am not saying I am qualified in legal matters, but I firmly believe that a Supreme
Court Justice nominee needs to have more than two years experience as a judge.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

How does it feel to be consistantly shown to be wrong on this board PAD?

No, I am not saying I am qualified in legal matters, but I firmly believe that a Supreme
Court Justice nominee needs to have more than two years experience as a judge.

Being shown "wrong" on political matters is like telling someone they're "wrong" for liking vanilla more than chocolate.

Oh and the ABA disagrees with you strongly. They gave John Roberts their highest ranking. So again.... you're wrong.

OH! I also have to say. You LOST!

That should be something you're used to though. Losing comes so often to lefties. They should all be able to empathize with Cubs fans.

[camoor]

I was just thinking back to my grade school Social Studies class, and how the Executive/Legislative/Judiciary branches were set up for a "checks and balances" system.

Executive: check!
Legislative: check!
Judiciary: check!

Well, Republicans have the "check" part down, but that "balance" thing is a whole 'nother issue. Hrm.

:lol: That is comedy gold :lol:

[camoor]

So how does it feel to be on the losing end of an argument with 78 Senators and the American Bar Association?

Are you going to tell us you're far more qualified and able in the realm of legal and political matters than they are?

Translation: A majority of the politicians and lawyers voted for it, and they are geniuses who are always putting the citizen's rights and well being above all else; no need to think for yourself - it's gotta be right!

[sgs89]

Translation: A majority of the politicians and lawyers voted for it, and they are geniuses who are always putting the citizen's rights and well being above all else; no need to think for yourself - it's gotta be right!

Interestingly, though, the ABA tends to be a left-leaning organization. They could not, in good conscience, give anything less than a "well-qualified" rating to Judge Roberts, though.

[ZarathosNY]

Being shown "wrong" on political matters is like telling someone they're "wrong" for liking vanilla more than chocolate.

Oh and the ABA disagrees with you strongly. They gave John Roberts their highest ranking. So again.... you're wrong.

OH! I also have to say. You LOST!

That should be something you're used to though. Losing comes so often to lefties. They should all be able to empathize with Cubs fans.

Sorry but you have been shown to be wrong time and time again on FACTS, not flavors of ice cream. When shown to be wrong on thread, you either stop replying to it, or you start calling names. YOU should be used to being proven wrong time and time again.