Bush to announce new supreme court justice

Some new info courtesy of Salon

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."
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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
 
[quote name='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[/QUOTE]
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.
Click to expand...
 
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."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This is from newsmax, which is generally accurate.[/QUOTE]

Go away and bring us back the alonzo that made sense.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Go away and bring us back the alonzo that made sense.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Maybe you missed this part...[/QUOTE]
No I read it. I just don't A.) care, B.) think it's surprising that a judge would have partisan leanings.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wait, so file sharing is more important than abortions, detention centers, gay rights etc? No wonder america has been going down the drain lately.[/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='vienge']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![/QUOTE]

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).
 
[quote name='vienge']Detention centers? I'm for stricter punishment.[/QUOTE]

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).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Can't burn my Toby Keith "Bootleg Up Yer Ass" collection? NOOOOOOOOOO!!! (cue Darth Vader).[/QUOTE]

I loved the Dixie Chick's FUTK t-shirt. :lol:
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wait, so file sharing is more important than abortions, detention centers, gay rights etc? No wonder america has been going down the drain lately.[/QUOTE]

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".
 
[quote name='vienge']No I read it. I just don't A.) care, B.) think it's surprising that a judge would have partisan leanings.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
Did you know that while President Bush was making his nationally televised prime-time announcement, Judge Roberts son was dancing off camera.

capt.whcd10607202337.scotus_roberts_profile_whcd106.jpg


capt.sge.nio76.200705085833.photo00.photo.default-384x252.jpg


mdf614514.jpg


capt.sge.ngq49.200705015402.photo00.photo.default-380x280.jpg


capt.whcd11807200147.scotus_bush_whcd118.jpg
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']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.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations, you found out about spin.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, BOY! Yet another mongoloid who seems to think that deterrence strategies to corrections work!
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='vienge'] from some sandy vagina'ed hippy website.[/QUOTE]

That's the SECOND time I've seen someone write that - you and Rich. Is there some sort of Republican fixation on this? :whistle2:k
 
[quote name='vienge']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
More Questions for Roberts
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:
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20...TRuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']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.[/QUOTE]
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?
 

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...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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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."[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Judge Roberts is probably the most qualified person for the job.[/QUOTE]

Two years. That's how long he's been a judge. You're full of shit.
 
[quote name='Drocket']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Two years. That's how long he's been a judge. You're full of shit.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

You're cute. You must be new here. Awww.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I suppose this is the part where we agree to disagree, no?[/QUOTE]

If you have nothing else of substance to add, I guess so.
 
[quote name='sgs89']If you have nothing else of substance to add, I guess so.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top