SCOTUS Nominee Is Roberts

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, senior administration officials said.

Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.

Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.

Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

While he doesn't have national name recognition, Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice.

In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general,the government's second highest lawyer who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist before Reagan elevated the retiring jurist to the top chair in 1986.

It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003.

Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.

"He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_bush

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5

John Roberts

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.

Alliance for Justice Resources:

* Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
* Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts

* Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
* B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
* 1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
* 1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
* U.S. Department of Justice
o 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
o 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
* 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
* Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
o 1986-89, Associate
o 1993-present, Partner

General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPA’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

This ain't gonna be pretty.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The liberals are outraged at a Republican nominee for the SC.

In other news, sky is blue, grass is green, the Hawks suck at basketball, etc.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

The liberals are outraged at a Republican nominee for the SC.

In other news, sky is blue, grass is green, the Hawks suck at basketball, etc.

Actually, I'm just interested in seeing the confirmation process.

[blaze89]

The liberals are outraged at a Republican nominee for the SC.

In other news, sky is blue, grass is green, the Hawks suck at basketball, etc.

THE HAWKS SUCK AT BASKETBALL!!!!????

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

elpimpo,

I wasn't labeling you anything. From the first article...


Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

[FromWayDowntown]

The liberals are outraged at a Republican nominee for the SC.

In other news, sky is blue, grass is green, the Hawks suck at basketball, etc.

Well, to be fair, it's not as if this is some ho-hum news event. Bush is replacing the justice who most often cast deciding votes in close cases, and a judge who was as pragmatic in her approach as any the Court has seen in the last 100 years. Replacing her with an unwavering conservative is going to cause some people to wonder about the state of some pretty important and now-entrenched civil liberties going forward.

and by the way, my grass is actually some hideous shade of yellow-green right now . . . . :lol

[jochhejaam]

oh good!

a rich, white, rock-solid conservative, harvard graduating, reagan and bush-serving, yankee beltway insider

i'm shocked

Yeah, quite a surprise it wasn't a poor, non-caucasian, waffling liberal, Warren Wilson College graduating, Dean and Kerry serving, Rebel raised insider. Your boys would have confirmed him/her in a heartbeat.

If you want to nominate the SCJ's win the White House, the Senate and the House.

[Ginofan]

He will never be a judge on the SCOTUS. Never.

[Tek_XX]

shit....i can only imagine were this court will take us. There will still be 5-4 decisions except only in one direction. A womens right to choose won't be overturned but simply ajudicated to death. Mandated prayer and ten commandments displays. Trees?......what trees?

Oh the HORROR.

[Sii]

Roberts will be confirmed and confirmed easily

in 2003 he won overwhelming support with his confirmation in the Senate to the Fed court....it was such overwhelming support that he got in on a voice vote

All the dems that voted for him then would look like dumbasses trying to block this guy now after supporting him just 2 years ago

55 repubs will vote for him. Only 5 dems need to

[Sii]

He will never be a judge on the SCOTUS. Never.

he will...and it wont be a close vote

This was a safe pick and someone Bush knew would get confirmed. He is very qualified

it will be a shock if the vote is not overwhelming

5 votes needed is noting on the Dem side.

[cqsallie]

he will...and it wont be a close vote

This was a safe pick and someone Bush knew would get confirmed. He is very qualified

it will be a shock if the vote is not overwhelming

5 votes needed is noting on the Dem side.
Oh! Who gives a flying f***k?! Let's get this damned thing over with and get back to the important business.
Has anyone else noticed that - liberal or conservative - people who ultimately serve on the Supreme Court tend to stray toward the middle? It's the power of the Constitution that does them in, you might say.
So, to hell with it! If Bush had managed to resurrect Adolf Hitler or Mother Theresa and nominated either of them, it would be just the same. I don't want to see us wasting our time and energy fighting this nomination when it takes our eyes off the ball.
You know what ball I'm talking about, don't you? The Rove/Libby/Cheney/Bush ball that's rolling right on by you while you're wasting your breath on Roberts - like ants crawling all over a new lump of sugar, or feral cats swarming a plate of inedible crap and ignoring the filet mignon.
I don't care about Roberts! I care about Karl Rove going down, down, down, down... :elephant

[scott]

That is just plain dumb... Rove "going down" accomplishes what exactly? The Supreme Court's decision touches us all. I'd prefer a diligent analysis of a SCOTUS nominee over some witch hunt. If Rove did anything illegal, the special prosecutor will file charges, if not - you'll just have to get over it and wait until Rove fails to tip a bellhop to get your panties in a wad again.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

He will never be a judge on the SCOTUS. Never.

I beg to differ, I'd venture to say he's got enough votes to get in on the first vote, judging by his confirmation a couple of years back.

[jalbre6]

I beg to differ, I'd venture to say he's got enough votes to get in on the first vote, judging by his confirmation a couple of years back.

Does anyone ever get in on the first ballot? I'd guess Roberts will be appointed sooner or later, sure, but with the country as polarized as it is this day and age, someone somewhere will dig up something to tarnish this process.

And when Bush says someone has a good heart, the 46% of the population that doesn't trust the president in the first place are immediately going to start finding reasons why either Roberts doesn't belong or some other worthy individual got screwed.

[The Ressurrected One]

The Left has nothing on this guy. He's in...unless the Democrats make something up; along the lines of Anita Hill or find out Roberts smoked a little weed when he was younger (which, by the way, only counts against you if you're a conservative nominee.)

[Spurminator]

I'd prefer a diligent analysis of a SCOTUS nominee over some witch hunt.

Something tells me we'll see both (maybe more of the latter) in regards to Judge Roberts.

[SWC Bonfire]

I am reminded of a SNL skit that they did of the confirmation of Clarence Thomas some years ago. Senators were asking about Anita Hill like they were grilling the guy, but then started giving suggestions like "did you show her porn? Was it hard core or soft porn ? - because I've found women like soft porn more". Phil Hartman was Ted Kennedy- he made some comments about how he should have put her in an Oldmobile and drove into the water. :lol

[The Ressurrected One]

Well, Ann Coulter hates him...that should provide some comfort to the rabid Left in here.

[Jekka]

He will never be a judge on the SCOTUS. Never.

I sure as fuck hope not. I'd still like some say in what I can and cannot do to my body. I also fear for other women who could possibly lose the right to choose and end up hurting themselves in desperate acts because they're apparently not entitled to a safe way out.

[Marcus Bryant]

Bush nominates a judge and the apocalypse is upon us. Go figure.

I fear some of you are nutjobs.

[Spurminator]

Well, not to get into another abortion argument, but I believe the worst the SC could do is repeal Roe v. Wade, which would leave it up to states to decide whether or not to allow it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I would imagine that most states, except some of those in the South, would choose to continue to allow the practice of abortion.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, not to get into another abortion argument, but I believe the worst the SC could do is repeal Roe v. Wade, which would leave it up to states to decide whether or not to allow it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's my understanding.



I would imagine that most states, except some of those in the South, would choose to continue to allow the practice of abortion.

Probably so.

While we're on the 'I don't want someone telling me what we can do with our bodies' jingle, why stop with abortion?

[MannyIsGod]

Even with this man on the court, the Roe v Wade margin should still be 5-4 in favor of the decision.

[Extra Stout]

It appears the biggest criticism of Roberts the left-wing advocacy groups can come up with is that he is not a liberal.

To those of you that lean left, understand that Bush is not going to nominate a liberal. That should be obvious.

They'll need more than that to derail his candidacy.

Roberts is among the most qualified people possible to be a SCJ. He is prominent in the Beltway social community, popular both left and right (I say that not to imply he should be confirmed because of this, but rather to indicate that a lot of mainstream Dems will accept this choice). He already has the stamp of approval from the "Gang of 14," which gives him all the votes he needs.

Roberts may get slapped around a little bit by the Judiciary Committee, but he'll get confirmed. I predict a 99-1 vote, with only Boxer voting against because she just doesn't give a shit.

Unless, of course, something comes up that Bush's background check missed, or the libs are able to fabricate something.

[MannyIsGod]

Fabricate something? :lmao

[Extra Stout]

Fabricate something? :lmaoAs if left-wingers haven't fabricated "evidence" to smear conservatives anytime recently?

*ahem* National Guard "memos" *ahem*

[sbsquared]

Considering that he was confirmed 98-0 two years ago, it will be pretty hard for the libs to change their mind now and deny confirmation. President Bush again showed that he's not the mindless idiot the left think he is!! Way to go President Bush!!

[FromWayDowntown]

Considering that he was confirmed 98-0 two years ago, it will be pretty hard for the libs to change their mind now and deny confirmation. President Bush again showed that he's not the mindless idiot the left think he is!! Way to go President Bush!!

Well, that's true to an extent. The stakes are much different in appointing someone to SCOTUS than they are when appointing someone to the D.C. Circuit. Certainly, the D.C. Circuit is an influential court, but it is still answerable to the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit's constructions of statutes and the Constitution is subject to review; the Supreme Court's decisions face no such scrutiny and become the law of the land.

Robert Bork was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1982, but came up very short in the Senate in 1987 when nominated by Reagan to the Supreme Court.

I think Roberts is leagues different than Bork, but one lesson of the Bork quagmire is that you can't presume that a previous confirmation will assure a later one.

[MannyIsGod]

As if left-wingers haven't fabricated "evidence" to smear conservatives anytime recently?

*ahem* National Guard "memos" *ahem*
Your right, the left side of our society has the patent on fabrication. You guys crack me up. :lol

[Shelly]

Julia Roberts is his sister??? (http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/07/supreme_court_n.html)

[Extra Stout]

Your right, the left side of our society has the patent on fabrication. You guys crack me up. :lolExactly why would the right need to fabricate anything on Roberts? He's Bush's nominee. Maybe he's really just a robot controlled by Rove?

[SWC Bonfire]

Your right, the left side of our society has the patent on fabrication. You guys crack me up. :lol

He didn't say it was an exclusive patent. Licensing agreements are available.

[Extra Stout]

Julia Roberts is his sister??? (http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/07/supreme_court_n.html)
I think that was a spoof, given that the same site reports that Jeb Bush was looking to investigate Michael Schiavo's ties to Hurricane Dennis because "Dennis" spelled backwards is "Sinned."

[MannyIsGod]

Fair enough!

[mookie2001]

his name is John Roberts

[word]

The liberals are outraged at a Republican nominee for the SC.

In other news, sky is blue, grass is green, the Hawks suck at basketball, etc.

I've been a republican all of my life but I'm right on the cusp of switching. The republicans always ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, against government intrusion and since the Gingrich 'revolution' they've been running amock in both the federal and state legislatures and have basically done exactly the opposite of who they say they are.

The encroachment on civil liberties since the mid-90's has been nothing short of astounding all in the name of fighting crime. You know now, in California, they are trying to start a 'subversive' registry. All that 'sex offender' registration sounded good and may have made some people feel good, but in the end it's of no real value and registration for all sorts of things is just right around the corner.

Roberts recently represented the State of Alaska on a sex offender registration law that was overturned in the appelate courts but upheld by the USSC. What Alaska wanted to do was go back 'forever' to require registration for any type of sex crime regardless of how long ago it was, or what the offense. Two people challenged it that had been released and served their time more than 20 years ago, but were required to register under the new Alaska law. The SC ruled on the side of the State of Alaska in a 6-3 decision that it was not 'ex post facto' punishment.

Now, there are moves to require drug offenses, DWI's and theft offenses to register and in some cases, most particularly DWI's, to have a 'special license' plates. But your DWI was 25 years ago you say ? Well under this recent ruling, that wouldn't matter. In the state of California, there is a move to register people with 'undesireable ideas'. Skinheads/neo-nazi's are the target of this particular witch hunt.

The Supreme Court will never allow that you say ? Don't be too sure.

" I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment than by violent and sudden usurpations. "

-- James Madison

[mookie2001]

John Roberts

[clubalien]

the worst they could do?
they could let government have right to take house and give to walmart for the greater good
they could say the patriot act is consintitiooinal when it obviousdly isn't
they could make file sharing and VCRs illegal
the soprmme court could make it right to life and right to death not options
they could take our right to arm our selves
They could make seperate but equal toll roads possible
once the souprme court changes they can fuck everything up

Ofcourse they go to far and then we can just assinate one of them, but still supreme court if peopel follow rullings could change are lives alot worse then just rowe versue way

[clubalien]

freedom of speech come on people this is one of the biggest thing s and to claim
[qoute]the worst the SC could do is repeal Roe v. Wade[/quote] is stupid

for example lets say you want to zone your area so toxic polution cannot be close to a school

[Spurminator]

I meant the worst in regards to abortion/choice, not the worst in regards to all issues.

Simma down.

[word]

Roe -v- Wade isn't going to be overturned. A Nixon appointed court upheld R v W in the first place. There are bigger fish to fry. Ahhhh what do I care, this country is more than likely done with no chance of ever becoming what it could have been. Democracy requires an educated population, not a brainwashed population, to survive. It's over, I believe that in my heart.

[mookie2001]

maybe some of yall can answer my question
if they got all superneocons on the sc
what case could give them a chance to overturn r vs w

could yall describe an example?

[clubalien]

remeber senseably they have to have a case about something to rule about it. However since their is no actual check on a soupreme court rulling the case could be about mowing grass and out of no where their rulling is to promote gay marriage

the government has a right to enforce peopel moving yards to inforce the beutity of the republic under the interstate commerica clause because tourist coudl be traveling from out of state and therefore gov can enforce just as it can enforce gay marrage

really there is no check to the rulling because the congress can pass a new constituaonl ammednment banning gay marriage, but then the court can define gay as happy marrge then no happy poepel can get married

then the congree passes a amdent defineing happy and the court rules soemthing else

this is so huge peopel they serve for life and any judgement they make can change our whole society

[mookie2001]

its funny because a lot of chodes just think if they get a bunch of pro lifers on there they can just have a vote and knock it out
but i wonder what kind of case would have to come before them

[GoalTender]

the worst they could do?
they could let government have right to take house and give to walmart for the greater good
they could say the patriot act is consintitiooinal when it obviousdly isn't
they could make file sharing and VCRs illegal
the soprmme court could make it right to life and right to death not options
they could take our right to arm our selves
They could make seperate but equal toll roads possible
once the souprme court changes they can fuck everything up

Ofcourse they go to far and then we can just assinate one of them, but still supreme court if peopel follow rullings could change are lives alot worse then just rowe versue way


holy crap

[word]

Your lack of grammar and spelling skills pretty much rules out any opinion you could have. You can't spell 'people', form sentences or paragraphs, but you have an opinion on the supreme court, do ya ?

[mookie2001]

i agree with club alien

my question still stands
can anyone describe a potential case in which roe v wade could be overturned?

[word]

Nope. Not realistically. Not unless a fetus does sign language.

[Bandit2981]

can anyone describe a potential case in which roe v wade could be overturned?
if the court has a majority of neocons in it like you originally stated, it could be any kind of case that only has ideological merit. im sure TRO could give you a 20 page post of examples if you ask nicely.

[MannyIsGod]

Roe -v- Wade isn't going to be overturned. A Nixon appointed court upheld R v W in the first place. There are bigger fish to fry. Ahhhh what do I care, this country is more than likely done with no chance of ever becoming what it could have been. Democracy requires an educated population, not a brainwashed population, to survive. It's over, I believe that in my heart.
I hope your wrong, but I tend to agree with you.

[Ocotillo]

The Roberts nomination is a signal the Dems are winning. The Repugs control the Senate and the Executive branch so they should be able to get who they want. Dems have to accept the nominee will be conservative, period. Yet Bush nominates the guy with the smallest paper trail and only a limited tenure on the bench.

While he will never admit it, if he was still spending that "capital" he accumulated, he could have nominated a real kook like Janice Rogers Brown, Bork or even Ann Coulter for God's sake but with the recent turn of events:

His Social Security plan about as popular as the Bird Flu

Bolton twisting in the wind

The nuclear option compromise

His negative polling higher than his positives

Rove being exposed for the slime ball that he is

The administration is in a weakened state and had no stomach for the showdown that a flame thrower would have caused. It's called being a lame duck.

Shrub is still the president and Bill Frist and Tom Delay still call the shots on the in Congress.

Grill this guy, confirm him and move on with taking back the House and Senate.

Focus.........."It's the corruption, stupid."

[FromWayDowntown]

i agree with club alien

my question still stands
can anyone describe a potential case in which roe v wade could be overturned?

Initially, you wouldn't see a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade itself, just a bunch of opinions that will begin to erode the house that is built on Roe. By that, its my suspicion that initially you'd see the Court take long looks at things like: (1) laws permitting abortion without the consent of the father (or laws requiring the father's consent); (2) laws requiring that minors obtain parental consent before undergoing abortions (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England (No. 04-1144, to be argued on Nov. 30, 2005) presents a question concerning the constitutionality of requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion); and (3) a challenge to any law that permits partial-birth abortion.

As the Court takes hold, if Roberts' presence allows the Court to limit abortion through those questions, I suspect that you'd see a conservative state pass a law banning abortion within its borders (perhaps with some limiting language for cases of incest or rape) for the express purpose of having the law challenged and presented in that context to the Supreme Court. Only then would the Court have an invitation to reconsider Roe v. Wade in full.

We're several years away from that, though -- nobody is going to do much until they find out if Roberts is the conservative that Bush says he is, or more of a David Souter or William Brennan -- a non-conservative judge appointed by a conservative President. There is some reason to think that Roberts might not be the conservative that the White House is painting him to be. Apparently, while much has been made of his argument in a brief to the Court that Roe was wrongly decided, Roberts wrote a separate scholarly piece in which he basically said that the positions he took as a governmental lawyer weren't necessarily those he holds privately. That's cryptic, but it may suggest that there's some blue sky between Roberts views and those of the conservatives who are Bush's main constituency.

[word]

I read that somewhere.

[clubalien]

yes chipping away at rights, and chipping away at freedoms that the governments do is the most likely thing to happen.

[Marcus Bryant]

The Roberts nomination is a signal the Dems are winning. The Repugs control the Senate and the Executive branch so they should be able to get who they want. Dems have to accept the nominee will be conservative, period. Yet Bush nominates the guy with the smallest paper trail and only a limited tenure on the bench.


Bush also nominates a white conservative who is a spritely 50 years old. If he was ready to surrender he'd go with a non-white and/or female judge with a demonstrated moderate judicial viewpoint.

[jochhejaam]

he could have nominated a real kook like Janice Rogers Brown, ."

After Roberts is confirmed and Rehnquist steps down expect Janice Brown to be Bush's next nomination. What Democrats will be brave enough to vote against an African American female for Supreme Court Justice? (Kennedy will of course but because of stupidity not bravery) This will bring the female Court Justices back up to two and will be a landmark for African American women. Bush knows exactly what he's doing with his nominations!

She's a real kook? Could you be a little more vague? :rolleyes
What about her makes her a kook?

[word]

Surrender ? To who ?

The thing that always amazes me about people and republicans in general, is believing YOU are like George Bush or Dick Cheney. GW made what, 20 million off of the Texas Rangers sale ? Dick Cheney is worth what...200 million dollars ?

Hey man, even if you're worth FIVE million, and that's a lot of money, you ain't one of them and most of US aren't one of THEM. The middle class is dying.

It's a true problem and one that can't be shuffled aside wrapped in a banner of 'America' or 'capitalism'. Both sides are guilty.

[scott]

It will be very tough to challenge Roberts, for reasons above the fact he was unanimously confirmed to the appeals court... he doesn't have a lot of history of a judge, so the opposition will have to focus on his work as a lawyer... but even then Roberts was only acting as a lawyer on behalf of his clients, not necessarily his personal position on a number of issues.

I predict some tough questioning before the judiciary committee, then a cake-walk vote (70% + approval)

[word]

Eventually, they'll appoint a child for the lifetime terms on the federal bench.

He's too young. He could be on the bench for 30 years.

[clubalien]

BTW 2 abortion and 1 assitant suicide case on docket for next suprmee court

[word]

In regards to 'name a case that the SC could overturn RvW.

The SC did overturn the 'Miranda Law', what is known as the reading of our Miranda Rights, named after an Arizona man, for example. The cops don't have to do that any more. The SC can overturn their own rulings.

Your 'Miranda Rights' are still in force, but the police now give them to you as a courtesy, as it were.

[clubalien]

then why is it that renquist is always prasied for sabing maranda ?

[clubalien]

b=v

[Bandit2981]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court)

It will not take long to determine if John Roberts will shift the Supreme Court to the right. Abortion, gay rights and assisted suicide are among the first issues the court will consider in the fall
Here we go :rolleyes

[Extra Stout]

After Roberts is confirmed and Rehnquist steps down expect Janice Brown to be Bush's next nomination. What Democrats will be brave enough to vote against an African American female for Supreme Court Justice? (Kennedy will of course but because of stupidity not bravery) This will bring the female Court Justices back up to two and will be a landmark for African American women. Bush knows exactly what he's doing with his nominations!

She's a real kook? Could you be a little more vague? :rolleyes
What about her makes her a kook?The left has a real problem in that there is a very deep pool of excellent conservative judges right now from which Bush can pull.

I'm not sure Brown is near the top of Bush's list. She's more of a judicial activist, though a profoundly right-wing one. Bush appears to prefer the "strict constructionist" variety of judge.

I think he'd go with McConnell next. He's the superstar among superstars in the legal academic community, and if you couple his winsome demeanor with Roberts', that's quite a persuasive front for the conservative viewpoint on the court.

Wilkinson has to be near the top as well.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not sure Brown is near the top of Bush's list. She's more of a judicial activist, though a profoundly right-wing one. Bush appears to prefer the "strict constructionist" variety of judge.

I'd agree with that proposition.


I think he'd go with McConnell next. He's the superstar among superstars in the legal academic community, and if you couple his winsome demeanor with Roberts', that's quite a persuasive front for the conservative viewpoint on the court.

Wilkinson has to be near the top as well.

But I'm not sure I agree with this one.

Given the demographics of the situation and the opportunity to appoint someone who will be the first {something} Chief Justice, I suspect that Bush will go with a woman and I'd think the contenders would really be either Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit or Janice Rogers Brown. Frankly, since Edith Jones was rumored to be the runner-up to Souter and among the finalists for O'Connor's position this time, since it will be much easier to replace Rehnquist with a very conservative judge, and since Jones is both very conservative (more conservative, probably, than Brown) and female, she strikes me as a logical and likely choice.

There's little doubt that McConnell, Alito, Luttig, and Wilkinson are eminently qualified, though.

[SWC Bonfire]

What people don't realize is that we do not need radically right-wing judges on the supreme or federal courts. We just need MODERATE ones to offset the 11th circuit court of appeals and their like. Don't listen to extremists on the left crying wolf the moment someone who doesn't have purple hair and nose piercings is nominated to become a judge, supreme court or otherwise.

[FromWayDowntown]

What people don't realize is that we do not need radically right-wing judges on the supreme or federal courts. We just need MODERATE ones to offset the 11th circuit court of appeals and their like. Don't listen to extremists on the left crying wolf the moment someone who doesn't have purple hair and nose piercings is nominated to become a judge, supreme court or otherwise.

The 11th Circuit (which deals with cases from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida)? Do you mean the 9th Circuit (which deals with cases from California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Arizona)? I'd think you're talking about the 9th, but I hate to suppose that when I could be wrong.

For what it's worth, here are the reversal rates from the Supreme Courts October 2004 term, by circuit (the Court reversed 73.23% of all cases arising from the federal circuit courts):

1st - 100% (3 cases/3 reversed)
2nd - 100% (2/2)
3rd - 75% (4/3)
4th - 66% (3/2)
5th - 75% (8/6)
6th - 64% (11/7)
7th - 50% (2/1)
8th - 75% (4/1)
9th - 84% (19/16)
10th - 100% (3/3)
11th - 50% (10/5)
Fed.- 50% (2/1)

[Extra Stout]

Given the demographics of the situation and the opportunity to appoint someone who will be the first {something} Chief Justice, I suspect that Bush will go with a woman and I'd think the contenders would really be either Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit or Janice Rogers Brown. Frankly, since Edith Jones was rumored to be the runner-up to Souter and among the finalists for O'Connor's position this time, since it will be much easier to replace Rehnquist with a very conservative judge, and since Jones is both very conservative (more conservative, probably, than Brown) and female, she strikes me as a logical and likely choice.

There's little doubt that McConnell, Alito, Luttig, and Wilkinson are eminently qualified, though.There's an article in the Hartford Courant (http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-scotus0714.artjul14,0,4264662.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics) that implies that McConnell and Wilkinson, along with Roberts, would be likelier to meet with the approval of the "Gang of 14." If those seven Democratic senators allow a vote on a candidate along with the 55 Republicans, the Dems don't have enough votes left for a filibuster.

[SWC Bonfire]

The 11th Circuit (which deals with cases from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida)? Do you mean the 9th Circuit (which deals with cases from California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Arizona)? I'd think you're talking about the 9th, but I hate to suppose that when I could be wrong.

Oops. You're right, the 9th Circuit on the west coast. I guess I had 11th on the brain from all the media coverage of the Alabama Ten Commandments thing.

[FromWayDowntown]

There's an article in the Hartford Courant (http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-scotus0714.artjul14,0,4264662.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics) that implies that McConnell and Wilkinson, along with Roberts, would be likelier to meet with the approval of the "Gang of 14." If those seven Democratic senators allow a vote on a candidate along with the 55 Republicans, the Dems don't have enough votes left for a filibuster.

See, I don't think the Gang of 14 is going to be a huge concern to Bush after this confirmation -- if Roberts is acceptable to all, the perception will be that Bush nominated someone who was fairly moderate (or at least not supremely-conservative) to the Court to replace the departing moderate in O'Connor. Since there's some degree of placating going on with the Roberts nomination, I'd expect that the Rehnquist replacement will be a much, much more conservative (read: controversial) choice, which leads me away from another man and to a hard-line conservative female. I've read discussions in several blogs run by Supreme Court practitioners and former Supreme Court clerks that suggest that Bush will make no compromises with his next appointment and that Judge Jones will be at the very top of the list headed into that process.

Ultimately, none of us really knows what will happen -- less than 6 hours before Roberts was nominated, the whole world was pretty sure that Edith Clement was the choice. Roberts, until that point, had received some discussion, but hardly as much discussion as people like McConnell, Luttig, Alito, and even Jones. What the Hartford Curant reports now is interesting, but it's not going to dissuade me from my belief that Jones will be a finalist for the Chief Justice position.

[Vashner]

Is it me or did he have a hair piece in the front top?

[bigzak25]

say what you want, but his kid knows how to get down...:smokin :tu


http://gopvixen.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/captwhcd11807200147scotus_bush_whcd118_1.jpg

http://gopvixen.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/johnrobertsdancer.gif

[Extra Stout]

The best dirt the lefties have on Roberts so far is that he wore plaid pants in the 1970's, and he once played the role of Peppermint Patty in a high school play, so therefore he must be gay.

I swear I am not making that up.

Gay groups are outraged at the suggestion they would wear plaid pants.

OK, I made that up.

[The Ressurrected One]

The best dirt the lefties have on Roberts so far is that he wore plaid pants in the 1970's, and he once played the role of Peppermint Patty in a high school play, so therefore he must be gay.

I swear I am not making that up.

Gay groups are outraged at the suggestion they would wear plaid pants.

OK, I made that up.
I saw a post on the Democratic Underground that suggested his son, Jack, was gay as well.

Jack is 4 years old.

Then, you have the LA Times making fun of how they dressed for the News Conference.

Yeah, the Left is grasping on this one...

[The Ressurrected One]

Do you mean the 9th Circuit (which deals with cases from California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Arizona)?
Wasn't there legislation to officially change the court's designation to the 9th Circus?

[FromWayDowntown]

Wasn't there legislation to officially change the court's designation to the 9th Circus?

It's interesting to me that two of the most conservative federal judges sit on that court (Janice Rogers Brown and Alex Kozinski) and yet it gets roundly ridiculed. I guess until it's homogeneously-conservative . . . .

The Supreme Court affirmed more 9th circuit cases last term than 5th Circuit cases.

[SWC Bonfire]

The Supreme Court affirmed more 9th circuit cases last term than 5th Circuit cases.

That means 8 cases heard by the 5th circuit merited an appeal before the supreme court. 19 cases from the 9th circuit merited an appeal to the supreme court. What does that tell you? It tells you that the 9th circuit is making judicial decisions that are out of line with the rest of the nation.

Judges should not legislate from the bench, right or left. It's not their job.

[FromWayDowntown]

That means 8 cases heard by the 5th circuit merited an appeal before the supreme court. 19 cases from the 9th circuit merited an appeal to the supreme court. What does that tell you? It tells you that the 9th circuit is making judicial decisions that are out of line with the rest of the nation.

Judges should not legislate from the bench, right or left. It's not their job.

Well, I was playing fast and loose with the numbers for effect . . . .

I don't think the 9th Circuit is as out-of-line as some think. The 9th Circuit is faced with a great number of issues (based on the geographical area that it covers and the interests that reside therein) that don't arise in other parts of the country. Given the issues of first impression, they are left to read the existing authority and come to conclusions in those cases. Frankly, if people took the time to read the cases (and didn't just rely on what the media hyperbolically says about the cases) they'd see that the court does expend a great deal of energy to square its conclusions with whatever precedent exists on the subject.

While you may not like it (or choose to disbelieve it) the 9th Circuit's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance in Newdow was rooted in Supreme Court precedent that strongly suggests that mention of religion in the public schools is strictly forbidden by the Establishment Clause. The 9th Circuit construed that precedent and understood it to state a broad rule pertaining to any mention of religion, including the mention of God mandated by the federal statute that sets forth the Pledge. It's not as if the Court just woke up and decided, without any precedent whatsoever, that compelling a pledge of allegiance that invokes "God" should be unconstitutional -- there is some authority to support its position. If you think the authority on that issue is wrong, the problem lies in the Supreme Court, not in the 9th Circuit.

[clubalien]

remember circuit rullings only apply to that district so some other states don't have to obey untill it gets to suprmee court

[Marcus Bryant]

So what's wrong with this guy other than him being a Bush nominee? Seriously, I could give a fuck less if he told a bad joke 30 years ago. I've been around too long to believe the apocalypse is upon us if any judge, right or left, is nominated. What is wrong with the man? Why can't he do his job?

[mookie2001]

i think the guys pretty moderate as far as bush nominees would go
but its not a bad idea to study up on some anonchode
if i were to guess a conservative sc nom bush would name id guess naturally a middle aged rich white guy named-- i shit you not "john roberts"
its easy to say now, but that would have been at least my third guess

[Marcus Bryant]

So he's rich and he's white. So are most elected Democratic officials.

I need something more.

[mookie2001]

something more to what?
love him without question
its another thread why most elected fed gov officials are old, rich, white and male

[word]

You know Jefferson wrote the main body of the Constitution in a single sitting. In his first writing he out right said slavery should be abolished. So the rest of 'em didn't like it and made him go back and take it out. Anyway, I wish they would have spent a bit more time writing the Constitution. One of the greatest documents ever written but a few more weeks could have done wonders. I've come to believe it has some flaws that a bunch of creeps, those creeps being human beings, take advantage of. The framers of the Constitution tried their best to deal with the human condition but that is a tall order. The spirit of the US Constitution and the intent of the framers, has been dead for quite a while. I'd say starting around the mid-80's was when the assault began, full force, and it ramped up big time in the 90's and has now been relegated to nothing more than a museum piece.

[FromWayDowntown]

You know Jefferson wrote the main body of the Constitution in a single sitting. In his first writing he out right said slavery should be abolished. So the rest of 'em didn't like it and made him go back and take it out. Anyway, I wish they would have spent a bit more time writing the Constitution.

Yeah, you got some really bad information there word. The Constitution was debated and drafted in 1787. Jefferson was in Paris during most (if not all) of that year. I don't think Mr. Jefferson was participating from across the pond via fax, e-mail, or video conferencing.

Generally speaking, James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution, primarily because he kept detailed journals of the daily debates that took place in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention. Many suspect that Madison was the primary drafter of the document as well.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the entirety of the Declaration of Independence (which isn't a law-giving document, despite its primacy as a founding document), but had nothing to do with drafting the Constitution -- the man didn't even sign the Constitution.

[word]

I stand corrected. I was thinking about that tour in Philly .. None the less, I think the Constitution has some flaws that will ultimately, kill us

Not what is IN the Constitution or the BOR, but rather, what is lacking. The 'inalienable rights' is a quote of Jeffersons in the Declaration who's spirit seems to be being chipped away at in law.