Reply With Quote
He won 2 out of 3 debates and an election against Kerry in spite of the media's full support of Kerry and Bush bashing...
Dubya can debate... once he lifts up his left foot your ed.
Biden is running for the Democratic nomination.
Biden's semi-hard-ass grilling, rather than reverent ass-kissing, is nothing but his attempt to establish his credentials and weight class, two characteristics that shrub never established with anybody but his choir.
Can anybody imagine shrub having the brains and language skills and knowledge to grill someone the way Biden is grilling Roberts?
Can anybody imagine shrub standing up in the House of Commons during Prime Minister's Question Time like Tony Blair and mixing it up with the opposition?
He won 2 out of 3 debates and an election against Kerry in spite of the media's full support of Kerry and Bush bashing...
Dubya can debate... once he lifts up his left foot your ed.
Talk about revisionist history!
"he lifts up his left foot your ed"
he can't, he's got his head up his ass.
At what point did a discussion of the Roberts hearing turn into a diatribe about the President's debating style or ability. Don't hijack the thread, please. The topic at hand warrants its own discussion.
He sent Kerry's ass packing... Edwards who? ... ownt..
Bush has 2 rings... and a couple state championships to boot..
YOU LOOZE.
It's pretty clear Roberts is gonna get confirmed, so here's somebody having some fun with trying to get Roberts to stop being a pitcher of warm spit and actually expose his true self:
Making Roberts Talk
By JOHN TIERNEY
He came, he charmed, he shut up. During the opening statements, the senators blathered away their time and more; Judge John Roberts used less than half of his to utter a few graceful generalities. He has made a career out of not saying the wrong thing. Why start now?
A lawyer who has been cross-examined dozens of times by the Supreme Court will not be caught off guard by senators posing as legal scholars. There has never been a nominee better prepared to dodge cons utional questions.
The only hope for Democrats is to try the tactics used by interrogation pros like Israeli airport screeners and U.S. customs agents. These experts know that a smart criminal will have rehearsed a cover story for, say, what he was doing in London and why he's going to New York.
But if he's asked something unexpected - how he liked the London weather, whether he's planning to visit Times Square - he has to change mental gears. He's apt to exhibit telltale signs of a liar under stress, like gazing upward and to his right as he answers.
I'm not suggesting that Mr. Roberts is a liar, or that anything the Democrats ask today could stop him from being confirmed. But they might at least keep TV viewers awake by trying questions like these:
If Roe v. Wade were a tree, what kind of tree would it be?
Is there any chance that you could speed up Justice Stevens's retirement by addressing him as "Gramps"?
After seeing a judge's robes in a Gilbert and Sullivan production, Chief Justice Rehnquist added gold stripes to his robe. If confirmed, will you keep the stripes, or do you have a whole new look in mind?
In your best judgment, did Brad and Jen really just grow apart, or was it Angelina's fault?
From your analysis of cons utional history, would you classify James Madison as a dog person or a cat person?
Suppose you'd been in Solomon's place when he proposed cutting the baby in two. And suppose neither woman objected. Would you have cut the baby? Flipped a coin? Or opted for foster care?
You've said you're a devotee of P. G. Wodehouse. Of the current justices, who is most like Jeeves? Who's most like Bertie Wooster?
Would you consider ins uting a casual Friday dress policy on the bench?
Would it be a violation of Lois Lane's so-called right to privacy if Superman used his X-ray vision to look through her clothes?
Would you think it's cool if a professional wrestler dubbed himself Chief Justice, or would you sue him for trademark infringement?
During the announcement of your nomination at the White House, your son distracted the president with an impromptu dance. When you got home that night, what happened to him?
Would Thomas Jefferson have preferred the Beatles or the Stones?
After Justice Souter's opinion in the Kelo case endorsed the use of eminent domain to seize peoples' homes for a higher "public use," a group proposed that the town of Weare in New Hampshire increase its tax revenue by taking Justice Souter's property there so that a developer could build a resort called the Lost Liberty Hotel. Would your family ever vacation there?
What goes on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon and three legs in the evening?
When you were a clerk at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger was disliked for his pretentiousness. What nickname did the clerks have for him? Burger King?
Does President Bush have a nickname for you yet?
When justices have birthday parties, should they invite all the other justices, or can they invite just the ones they like?
If Vice President Cheney and Justice Scalia invited you duck hunting, would you go?
If Judge Judy isn't afraid of television cameras in her courtroom, why is the Supreme Court so chicken?
Ashley or Mary-Kate?
Your passion for correct grammar and syntax is well known, but you have yet to inform the American people of your position on the serial comma. In the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," should there be a comma after "liberty"?
How would you edit this sentence to make it grammatically correct?: "I swear I ain't never gonna overturn Roe v. Wade."
Why did you turn to the right and look upward?
E-mail: [email protected]
I think this is a good background on Roberts, and the rarefied kind of lawyer he is.
Roberts Cultivated An Audience With Justices for Years
By Michael Grunwald, Washington Post
John G. Roberts Jr. built a golden reputation as a "lawyer's lawyer" without doing most of the things that lawyers do. He never filed a lawsuit, addressed a jury, cross-examined a witness, took a deposition or negotiated a deal. He never advised a client on a tax return, a plea bargain, a restraining order, a will or a divorce. If he ever got into a confrontation with opposing counsel, no one seems to remember it.
That is because Roberts has spent most of his career as a star -- by all accounts, a superstar -- in the most rarified constellation of the legal galaxy, the exclusive club of Supreme Court appellate specialists. Now that Roberts has been nominated to sit on the court as its leader instead of standing before it as an advocate, his 17-year membership in that genteel, apolitical, almost academic club of overachievers may reveal more about his legal mind than his six-year stint as a brash, young Reagan administration aide or his two-year tenure as a federal judge.
There are 1 million lawyers in America, but only about two dozen Supreme Court specialists, nearly all white, nearly all male, nearly all based in Washington. They include staunch Republicans such as former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson and staunch Democrats such as former solicitor general Seth P. Waxman, but most of them will represent almost anyone with a case before the court; Waxman keeps a statue of a gunslinger in his office, a reminder that he's a hired gun. Roberts had a typically non-ideological practice, defending welfare recipients and environmental groups as well as coal and car companies, and once offering free advice to a gay rights group in a landmark anti-discrimination case.
But if his advocacy career offers few clues about what Roberts thinks, it does help illuminate how he thinks. The top Supreme Court advocates do not rely on grand theories; they delve into the minutiae of facts and law on a case-by-case basis. They analyze cases from every angle and know every weakness in their own arguments. They persuade with painstaking research and rigorous logic, not Perry Mason-style theatrics. They don't have to mingle much with the real world, but they do have to express complex ideas in clear terms. They are buttoned-down ins utionalists; none of them wear bolo ties in court.
"It's a very intellectual practice, a lot like being a judge," says Richard J. Lazarus, a former Roberts roommate who runs Georgetown University's Supreme Court Ins ute. "You can't be dogmatic. You've got to be able to see every side, and that's what made John so terrific."
Supreme Court specialists earn their keep by writing briefs and occasionally arguing a case -- which usually consists of answering a half-hour of questions about one arcane point of law, and earning their firms hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. But their work is not nearly as lucrative as litigation or corporate transactions; Carter Phillips, a veteran of 45 high court arguments, says the real benefit for their firms is "visibility, panache and stature."
In any case, it is good work if you can get it, and Roberts got it, arguing 39 cases before the justices, winning 25 of them. As a deputy solicitor general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush and a partner at the blue-chip firm of Hogan & Hartson, he was renowned for crisp writing, obsessive preparation and smooth-as-glass performances in court. He never seemed flustered or defensive, and his authoritative tone made even the most complicated legal parsing sound as obvious as 2 plus 2. Supreme Court advocacy requires a kind of role-playing, and Roberts always cultivated an air of matter-of-fact reasonableness, regardless of whether his case was a dog or a slam-dunk. He knew the habits and history of the justices as well as any other American, and he deftly played to his audience.
"Impassioned rhetoric doesn't work with the Supreme Court," he once told legal journalist Tony Mauro. "If it did, I'd become impassioned."
By the time a case reaches the Supreme Court, factual issues are no longer in dispute, which fuels a certain above-the-fray quality in the lawyers who argue there. Some liberals, concerned by some memos Roberts wrote during the Reagan administration about issues such as busing and sex discrimination, wonder whether nearly two decades of high-level appellate work have given him the empathy to deal with real-world problems.
"It's helpful for someone who's going to be a judge to have dealt with ordinary people," says Peter B. Edelman, a Georgetown law professor and former Clinton administration official who opposes Roberts's nomination. "Ins utionally, it's better for the court to have as many people with real-life experience as possible."
Then again, no one would describe the current Supreme Court as streetwise; as Edelman pointed out, none of the liberal justices were digging ditches before their nominations, either. All the justices have been federal judges for at least 15 years (for some, including their time on the high court), and several were once law professors. And Roberts's colleagues say he did at least try to break out of the appellate bar's ivory tower. When he defended Toyota against a claim for a repe ive-motion injury, he visited a factory to get a better understanding of the work in question. When he defended Alaska against a native land claim, he flew over the Arctic Circle, boated up pristine rivers and visited native villages to get a feel for the back country.
"This kind of advocacy can be an academic exercise, but John always wanted to make sure he could explain his arguments in real-world terms," says Gregory Garre, who worked for Roberts at Hogan & Hartson and is now the firm's top appellate lawyer. "He's not the kind of guy who makes up his mind right away. He goes through cases brick by brick."
In the 19th century, giants such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster regularly appeared before the court. But by 1980, one amateur court historian wrote in the Journal of Supreme Court History, that four-fifths of the oral advocates -- not including lawyers from the solicitor general's office, who represented the United States -- were arguing for the first time. "It used to be that lawyers appeared once in a lifetime, and brought their grandmothers from Dubuque to watch," says E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., who became an exception to that rule after joining Hogan & Hartson 50 years ago. "It's not like that anymore."
By 2002, according to the historian, barely half the advocates were first-timers, and the percentage of "recidivists" who argued more than one case in the term had increased tenfold. The shift began in the mid-'80s, when a wave of lawyers left the solicitor general's office to launch Supreme Court practices at major firms. Deputy Solicitor General Stephen M. Shapiro lured several colleagues to Mayer, Brown & Platt. Solicitor General Rex Lee brought Phillips to Sidley & Austin. Soon everyone wanted an experienced advocate; in 1996, one losing attorney was sued for malpractice for failing to refer his case to a specialist.
"If one side hires a Supreme Court specialist to present a case, it may cause the client on the other side to think that they ought to consider doing that as well," the historian wrote. "This is just a variant on the old adage that one lawyer in town will starve, but two will prosper."
That historian, incidentally, was John G. Roberts Jr. He always revered the court as an ins ution, and appellate advocacy appealed to his analytical mind; it also seemed like a steppingstone to the federal bench. So after serving as a political appointee in the Reagan administration, during which he wrote knife-edged memos attacking liberal ideas and ridiculing Democrats, he joined Hogan & Hartson to work for Prettyman, a liberal Democrat who was one of the deans of the Supreme Court bar. Prettyman became a mentor to Roberts, who adopted his habits of reading every page of the trial record himself, and carrying around a legal pad at all hours to jot down potential questions the justices might ask.
"There's nothing political about this work," says Prettyman, the son of a legendary appellate judge whose name graces the courthouse where Roberts sits. "You don't have to be in love with your client. You've just got to work really, really hard."
In 1989, Roberts joined the solicitor general's office, a way station for almost every prominent Supreme Court specialist, offering unparalleled opportunities for bright, young lawyers to gain court experience. It is a hardworking office with an old-fashioned culture of professionalism, where lawyers tend to believe there is a right answer to legal questions based on statutory interpretation, and still wear morning coats and ascots when appearing before the court. "Politics" is a dirty word on the Justice Department's fifth floor, and while Roberts served as Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr's "political deputy," and once signed a department brief that described Roe v. Wade as "wrongly decided," his colleagues do not recall a politically charged atmosphere in the office.
"It was more of a scholastic atmosphere," recalls Maureen Mahoney, now a Supreme Court specialist at Latham & Watkins. "We had lawyers all across the political spectrum, and I don't think anyone would say John had an ideological agenda."
President George H.W. Bush tried to put Roberts on the bench in 1992, but his nomination languished in the Democratic-controlled Senate, then stalled after President Bill Clinton's election. So Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson. Its Supreme Court practice -- like most Supreme Court practices -- was essentially a for-profit version of the solicitor general's office, without the costumes. The main difference was that as the court's caseload has dwindled to about 80 per year, with many arguments reserved for government lawyers, even the elite advocates had to compete for paying clients at "beauty contests."
Roberts was elite among the elite; David Frederick, the author of a textbook on Supreme Court advocacy as well as a prac ioner, compares him to the basketball star Tim Duncan, brilliant without being flashy. Clerks often emerged from chambers to watch Roberts in action, and the court's voluble justices sometimes allowed him to speak for several minutes without interruption. He once argued and won a case on a few days' notice -- then argued and won an unrelated case in an appeals court that afternoon. He won his first case before the Supreme Court by a unanimous vote; eight years later, apparently concluding that Roberts had lured them further than they wanted to go, the justices unanimously reversed the decision.
Roberts was not infallible. He once lost a case 9 to 0 on behalf of Digital, and when asked why, he explained that there were only nine justices. Frederick's book, which cited numerous examples of Roberts's skill, noted one possible misstep: Roberts once dismissed a question by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy as "beside the point," which was true, but "might have been worded more artfully to have avoided alienating the justice." Roberts lost the case, 5 to 4, but Frederick notes that he may have concluded he could win a fifth vote by exposing Kennedy's fallacy; Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, often a swing vote, sided with Roberts.
Like Prettyman, whom he once defeated in a case before the court, Roberts was compulsive in his preparations. He ran three moot courts for each case, and spent countless hours -- not all of them billable -- fine-tuning his arguments. He boiled down his arguments to a few main points, then committed them to index cards and memorized them, then shuffled the cards to practice delivering them in different orders with different segues. He often felt ill before entering the high court, but at the lectern he was unflappable and meticulous, answering questions with the calm demeanor of an adviser without a rooting interest.
"When I'm at the podium, everyone knows I'm an advocate," says Lawrence S. Robbins, who worked with Roberts in the solicitor general's office and is now a court specialist at his own firm. "But John doesn't come across as a salesman, not for a minute. Don't get me wrong: He is a salesman. But it just sounds like he's telling the truth and you're crazy if you disagree."
Those who know Roberts say the Senate Judiciary Committee can expect a similar performance when he testifies on his own behalf. He will seem to be mulling his responses, but he will have anticipated just about every question and will have prepared every answer in advance. Nothing will sway him from his script.
Tom Goldstein is a black sheep of sorts on the Supreme Court bar, the exception that proves the rule. He did not attend law school at Harvard or Yale, or clerk for a Supreme Court justice, or work for a solicitor general. He became fascinated with the court while working as an intern at National Public Radio. He later figured out a way to use computers to predict the most likely cases the high court would hear, and began cold-calling lawyers with promising cases before the court even accepted them, offering to handle their appeals at cut-rate prices. That caught the attention of establishment lawyers such as Roberts, who was quoted saying that if he needed a heart surgeon, he wouldn't hire one who called him looking for business.
"The John Roberts view of lawyering is very traditional: You let cases come to you," says Goldstein, who runs a firm and two blogs out of his home with his wife, and has already argued 14 Supreme Court cases at age 35. "That's easy when you're as immensely talented as John Roberts."
That is about as snippy as it gets on the Supreme Court bar, where conflict is usually limited to the occasional snide adjective in a brief. This is a small group of repeat players; an opposing counsel today may file a friend-of-the-court brief tomorrow, or serve on the same moot court at the Georgetown ins ute, or sit at the same table at the monthly meetings of the appellate bar at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse.
"It's a collegial form of law, very civilized," says Robbins, a former prosecutor who still does trial work as well as appeals. "The issues have narrowed to one question. You don't find yourself asking some criminal: 'Aren't you just saying that because you're a dirtbag?' " The work of Supreme Court advocates is a lot like the work of Supreme Court justices; they spend a lot of time alone reading case law, analyzing statutes, probing for weaknesses in arguments. In his history article, Roberts suggested that he still dissects briefs as ruthlessly as he used to dissect his own arguments as an advocate: "My reaction is not typically, 'Well, that's a good argument,' or 'That's persuasive,' but instead, 'Says you. Let's see what the other side has to say.' "
As an advocate and a judge, Roberts has dedicated his career to interpreting the Supreme Court's decisions, searching for "the right answers" to legal questions based on statute and precedent. As a justice, he would have more leeway to establish those answers and set those precedents. But regardless of his personal beliefs, most of his colleagues on the Supreme Court bar suspect he would keep trying to find the right answers on a case-by-case basis, according to facts and the law. Appellate lawyers tend not to like judges who draw conclusions and then come up with rationales to justify them; it seems like a violation of the rules of their society.
"If he was just on an ideological crusade, I don't think this would have been particularly fulfilling work," Goldstein says.
Supreme Court specialists tend to revere the rule of law, and wax lyrical about their roles in preserving it. In his history article, Roberts compared them to medieval stonemasons who spent months meticulously carving gargoyles high in cathedrals where no one would ever see their work. Similarly, he wrote, oral advocates must rehearse answers to hundreds of questions the justices probably never would ask them.
"The stonemasons did it because they were carving for the eye of God," Roberts declared. "The advocate who stands before the Supreme Court also needs to infuse his craft with a higher purpose. He must appreciate that what happens here, in case after mundane case, is extraordinary -- the vindication of the rule of law -- and that he as the advocate plays a critical role in the process. The higher purpose will steel him for the long and lonely work of preparation . . . and will forge a special bond with his colleagues at the Supreme Court bar."
Roberts has told friends that if he is confirmed, he still hopes to attend monthly dinners with his former colleagues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...r=emailarticle
Ummm, I think that, ummm, I could be a good, ummmm, chief justice. Ummmm, what do you, ummm think?
Ignore is a great tool...
So Roberts is a really bright judge who is experienced with the workings of the SC.
Oh no. We can't have that.
If in reference to my post, I was just letting everyone know that I am actually watching the, ummmm, hearings. (sorry, I must take my tongue out of me cheek before dinner or I will never form a bolus again).
Roberts is doing a fine job!
No, I was just amazed at how much sense this thread makes without Nbadan and bouton's nonsense.
HA! You are so right TRO!
TRO/hussker/vashner continue their circle jerk.
Remember when a bunch of national rags were blowing up that picture of the funny bulge in the middle of Bush's back in the first debate, saying he was being fed answers? Kerry wound up mopping the floor with him so I guess it was a moot point.
Somehow that mopping job did not quite make it to 1600 PA Ave...Perhaps if he had used an Oreck!
Remember when a bunch of national rags were blowing up that picture of the funny bulge in the middle of Bush's back in the first debate, saying he was being fed answers? Kerry wound up mopping the floor with him so I guess it was a moot point.
Boxer Calls For Information On Roberts Nomination
(in a letter to *)
Senator Asks: What Are They Hiding?
September 13, 2005
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gave the following speech last night on the Senate floor regarding the Roberts nomination:
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for her leadership in reaching out to the people of this country, asking them to send in their questions for Judge Roberts. As she noted, 25,000 individuals wrote in questions and we received a total of 40,000 questions. It shows the American people have a lot at stake. This is a serious time for our country, and a very important nomination. We certainly know that.
----
The Judiciary Committee began its hearings today on Judge Roberts. This is a vital part of the advice and consent role of the Senate. Before we vote, it is every Senator's duty to find out if Judge Roberts will uphold or undermine our fundamental freedoms, the freedoms that essentially define us as Americans. It is our duty to find out if Judge Roberts will fulfill the promise etched above the Court itself: Equal justice under the law -- not justice only for the powerful, but equal justice for all. And when I say we have a duty, I am talking about our responsibility as Senators to act on behalf of we the American people.
-------
What is there to hide? It is a very important question. Senators on both sides of the aisle should be asking that question. Before we confirm Judge Roberts to a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice, we need to know everything possible about his views and philosophy. This isn't because it is interesting, because I am sure it would be interesting. Judge Roberts is a very bright and interesting man. But it is because every American's rights and freedoms hang in the balance. Judge Roberts has a very thin record on the bench. Therefore, his writings and statements, when he worked for the Reagan administration and the first Bush administration, become very important.
----------------------------
We are talking about a very narrow request -- only 16 cases -- not a broad request for all records. What are these cases we are asking about? They include three about reproductive health, five about discrimination and civil rights, and three about the environment. These are the very issues Americans told us they wanted Roberts to answer questions about when they wrote to our web site.
I believe the American people want transparency and openness in this process. This should not be some hide-and-seek, catch-me-if-you-can deal. This is about someone who could sit on the Court for 30 years, or more. This is someone who is going to influence the lives of our grandchildren and perhaps even our great grandchildren.
---------------
In addition to getting the information on these cases, Judge Roberts also must answer questions, and I hope he is going to do that. I know a couple of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today seemed to be counseling him not to answer questions. One of them cited Judge Ginsburg, and said she drew the line by refusing to answer questions.
Let me tell you what Judge Ginsburg said at her hearing when she was asked about Roe v. Wade and a woman’s reproduction freedom. She said: “It's a decision she must make for herself. And when Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human.”
That is a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And it is certainly at odds with all that Senator Hatch and others are saying about how Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t answer questions about key legal issues. No. 1, her writings on this and other topics were extensive. Then at the hearing, she said clearly that when the Government takes control -- I am going to read it again:
“When Government controls that decision, a woman is being treated as less than a fully adult human.”
---------------------
We need to know if Judge Roberts thinks the right to privacy is a fundamental right. We know he wrote about it as the so-called right of privacy.
-----------------
We also need to know why Judge Roberts argued before the Supreme Court and on national TV that our Federal courts and marshals had no role in stopping clinic violence when women were being threatened and intimidated at family planning clinics all over the country.
It is time for Judge Roberts to say what he really thinks – on privacy, on gender discrimination, on civil rights, on the environment. On the appellate court, he wrote an opinion that raises questions about whether he would find the endangered species act cons utional. Does he think it is our right in the Congress to pass environmental laws that protect all Americans?
As Senator Mikulski said, the role of the women Senators is very important. Women across America are counting on us to stand up, to ask the questions, and to get the answers. When we vote on this nomination, it must be an informed vote either yes because we believe he will protect our rights and freedoms or no because we have not been convinced.
Full letter available here:Boxer.Senate.gov
We want to know why John Roberts is not a liberal Democrat. We will call him a racist neanderthal ape until he submits. [/Boxer]
.
.
Real AP Photo of Roberts:
Supreme Court Chief Justice nominee Judge John Roberts listens to a question from Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) during the second day of his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington September 13, 2005. Roberts was pressed by senators for his views on the strength of established legal precedent with regard to the controversial issue of abortion rights and the landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion case. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'
Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'...
Developing...
Rehnquist dies and Bush replaces him with a 50 year old version who the Demos can't touch. How exactly is Bush so weak in DC?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
