Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 90
  1. #1
    Dr. Pepper Johnny_Blaze_47's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Post Count
    24,692
    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 Cons ution," 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

  2. #2
    Dr. Pepper Johnny_Blaze_47's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Post Count
    24,692
    http://www.independentjudiciary.com/...fm?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 laude & J.D., 1979, magna 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 cons utional, 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 cons utional.

    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 Cons ution, 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 EPAÂ’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.

  3. #3
    Dr. Pepper Johnny_Blaze_47's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Post Count
    24,692
    This ain't gonna be pretty.

  4. #4
    Free Throw Coach Aggie Hoopsfan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Post Count
    31,094
    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.

  5. #5
    Dr. Pepper Johnny_Blaze_47's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Post Count
    24,692
    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.

  6. #6
    Believe. blaze89's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    605
    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!!!!????

  7. #7
    Free Throw Coach Aggie Hoopsfan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Post Count
    31,094
    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.

  8. #8
    Get Refuel! FromWayDowntown's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    19,921
    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 . . . .

  9. #9
    Marilyn Rae Lover jochhejaam's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    7,614
    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.

  10. #10
    Can handle TheTruth Ginofan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Post Count
    4,069
    He will never be a judge on the SCOTUS. Never.

  11. #11
    Dos Equis
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    4,397
    ....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.

  12. #12
    DizzG is Retired Sii's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    308
    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

  13. #13
    DizzG is Retired Sii's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    308
    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.

  14. #14
    communications quality
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Post Count
    378
    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 Cons ution that does them in, you might say.
    So, to 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...

  15. #15
    Veteran scott's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    20,555
    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.

  16. #16
    Free Throw Coach Aggie Hoopsfan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Post Count
    31,094
    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.

  17. #17
    It's 11:46...and OU STILL sucks!!!!! jalbre6's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Post Count
    1,439
    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.

  18. #18
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    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.)

  19. #19
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    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.

  20. #20
    See you when it burns SWC Bonfire's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    3,966
    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.

  21. #21
    Guess Who's Back?
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    1,558
    Well, Ann Coulter hates him...that should provide some comfort to the rabid Left in here.

  22. #22
    JekkaIsGoddess Jekka's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    3,347
    He will never be a judge on the SCOTUS. Never.
    I sure as 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 en led to a safe way out.

  23. #23
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Post Count
    1,021,992
    Bush nominates a judge and the apocalypse is upon us. Go figure.

    I fear some of you are nutjobs.

  24. #24
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    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.

  25. #25
    Pimp Marcus Bryant's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Post Count
    1,021,992
    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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •