Bush to announce new supreme court justice

[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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."
 
[quote name='sgs89']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."[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]


I am going to try this at my next job interview.
 
[quote name='"mykevermin"']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).[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Drocket']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='sgs89']That being said, I think both sides are just a little unsure on how we will rule on these issues.[/quote]
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."
Click to expand...
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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']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?[/QUOTE]
Well, for one, his ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL HISTORY as a lawyer...
 
[quote name='Drocket']

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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Well, for one, his ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL HISTORY as a lawyer...[/QUOTE]

Such as?
 
[quote name='sgs89']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Drocket']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Such as?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']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).[/QUOTE]

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?)
 
[quote name='Drocket']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?)[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Drocket']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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...)
 
[quote name='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...)[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Well, for starters, his views on particular issues are not necessarily germane to the confirmation process.
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.

What is germane is whether he is (a) qualified and
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Dude, you are WAYYYY too into this. Those 22 who voted against should be ashamed of themselves for actually having a backbone, huh?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']How did hillary vote?[/QUOTE]

She voted against Roberts. Not really a surprise.
 
[quote name='niceguyshawne']Dude, you are WAYYYY too into this. Those 22 who voted against should be ashamed of themselves for actually having a backbone, huh?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']She voted against Roberts. Not really a surprise.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
So nothing's changed in the Supreme Court.

The real battle is the next nominee. The democrats are choosing which fights to pick.
 
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.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Those 78 should be ashamed of themselves for voting in someone who only has TWO years experience as a judge.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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

I agree, but you must admit that Roberts is well-qualified notwithstanding his two-years of appellate judicial experience.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Those 78 should be ashamed of themselves for voting in someone who only has TWO years experience as a judge.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']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?[/QUOTE]

It's no different than arguing against abortion or other issues that the majority support, and the supreme court ruled one.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So how does it feel to be on the losing end of an argument with 78 Senators and the American Bar Association?[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Are you going to tell us you're far more qualified and able in the realm of legal and political matters than they are?[/QUOTE]

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

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

:lol: That is comedy gold :lol:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']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?[/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='camoor']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![/QUOTE]

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

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.
 
[quote name='sgs89']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.[/QUOTE]

And, I was right -- Justice Kagan was confirmed to SCOTUS with no judicial experience. And it didn't even take a decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top