John C. Roberts (n/t)

[IronDragon1]

Go!

[[censored]]

Awesome. not only do I love the pick but it also means we could get a really nasty (ie good tv) fight. winners all around

[Bill Murphy]

Like you, I love the looming bloodbath. Dems will defo try to filibuster and Frist will go for the override.

[Matty]

Very vocally anti-Roe. I love it. It can only help us Dems politically.

Let's get it on.

Edit: http://americablog.blogspot.com/ has a lot of Roberts info compiled already.

[ChristinaB]

Clark Kent nominated to Supreme Court.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050719/stg_hz_roberts_cvr_5pA.widec.jpg


This is Bush's idea of diversity?

[partygirluk]

What are the chances this guy gets accepted by the senate?

[JimBob2232]

[ QUOTE ]

What are the chances this guy gets accepted by the senate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Greater than 95 percent. Fillibuster will be met with the nuclear option. Plus this guy is not that contraversial. Overwhelmingly approved before (97-3 or so), so this shouldnt be a problem

[adios]

That was the question I had, what was the vote in the Senate when he was up for the Appellate position? If it was 97-3 (I have no reason to doubt what you say) then it will show how partisan the process has become when the Democrats fillibuster this nomination which I'm sure they will. If he gets an up or down vote it won't be anywhere close to 97-3 this time around.

[billyd]

100%

[IronDragon1]

+G, -C

Keep going.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
What are the chances this guy gets accepted by the senate?

[/ QUOTE ]

100% as long as nothing immoral/illegal comes out

[lehighguy]

Anyone know where I can find things he's written.

[[censored]]

Pretty much a brilliant selection by Bush. He went as far right as he could without sparking a too much of a backlash.

My guess is he replaces Rehnquiest with a hard right woman but replaces any retiring liberals with moderate republicans. This will keep the ability of Democrats to fight to a minimum while still shifting the court to the right, where he wants it.

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
That was the question I had, what was the vote in the Senate when he was up for the Appellate position? If it was 97-3 (I have no reason to doubt what you say) then it will show how partisan the process has become when the Democrats fillibuster this nomination which I'm sure they will. If he gets an up or down vote it won't be anywhere close to 97-3 this time around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't put much value in the actual vote numbers considering that once a decision is made, most people get behind the winner for record purposes, especially in these types of votes...

I'm positive supporters numbered much fewer then 93.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much a brilliant selection by Bush. He went as far right as he could without sparking a too much of a backlash.

My guess is he replaces Rehnquiest with a hard right woman but replaces any retiring liberals with moderate republicans. This will keep the ability of Democrats to fight to a minimum while still shifting the court to the right, where he wants it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong here but I wouldn't think any of the Left leaning Justices will retire in the next two years.

Also, Rehnquiest, might not retire in the next two years. I have a feeling that Rehnquiest is going to stay there as long as he is breathing.

With that being said, this might be W's only pick unless someone dies.

I do agree that it seems like a brilliant pick at the moment. This could change in the next 6 to 8 weeks so stay tuned.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
This is Bush's idea of diversity?

[/ QUOTE ]

If Bush had nominated another Clarence Thomas, would you have been happy because of the "diversity" of the pick?

[Felix_Nietsche]

This is Bush's idea of diversity?
***************************************
Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Roberto Gonzales, and more. Clinton's cabinet had nothing on Bush. Bush has nothing to prove regarding diversity (which is VERY over-rated). Core political beliefs should trump any other consideration.

[Felix_Nietsche]

If Bush had nominated another Clarence Thomas, would you have been happy because of the "diversity" of the pick?
**************************************************
Bingo!

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is he replaces Rehnquiest with a hard right woman

[/ QUOTE ]I'll put money down that Gonzalez replaces Rhenquist now.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Republicans have pick lots of liberal activist judges in the past.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is he replaces Rehnquiest with a hard right woman

[/ QUOTE ]I'll put money down that Gonzalez replaces Rhenquist now.

[/ QUOTE ]

After speaking with my father, I have found out that he agrees with you and I cannot bet against my father.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That was the question I had, what was the vote in the Senate when he was up for the Appellate position? If it was 97-3 (I have no reason to doubt what you say) then it will show how partisan the process has become when the Democrats fillibuster this nomination which I'm sure they will. If he gets an up or down vote it won't be anywhere close to 97-3 this time around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't put much value in the actual vote numbers considering that once a decision is made, most people get behind the winner for record purposes, especially in these types of votes...

I'm positive supporters numbered much fewer then 93.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a crock your post is.

[Broken Glass Can]

The single most qualified person to be Chief Justice (who is not too old or already on the court) is Michael Luttig. If Bush is really dedicated to building a good court, he will appoint Luttig.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Core political beliefs should trump any other consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought "most qualified" should trump any other considerations. Oh, yeah, this is Felix; sorry.

-ptmusic

[lehighguy]

It's a sign of how bad a state the judicial branch is in when people start to have felix's opinion.

[thatguy11]

[ QUOTE ]
This is Bush's idea of diversity?
***************************************
Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Roberto Gonzales, and more. Clinton's cabinet had nothing on Bush. Bush has nothing to prove regarding diversity (which is VERY over-rated). Core political beliefs should trump any other consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe its funny that this is his idea of diversity because he said he was going to appoint someone to create more diversity (minority or woman) in the court not because he has diversity in his cabinet.

[JoshuaMayes]

I predict Roberts will sail through -- no filibuster, no nuclear option. He has friends on both sides of the aisle, he is personally charming, and he has an impeccable C.V. Gang of Fourteen member Joe Lieberman described Roberts as "inside the ballpark," yesterday, which does not bode well for the Dems hoping to muster support for a filibuster.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
Overwhelmingly approved before (97-3 or so), so this shouldnt be a problem

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the senate did not even take a formal role-call vote on his confirmation. Three of the Dems on the judiciary committee voted against him (in committee), but he was never actually put to a formal vote on the floor because his confirmation was considered inevitable.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone know where I can find things he's written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some links to some of his opinions:
Rancho Viejo dissent from denial of rehearing (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=dc&navby=case&no=015373B)

Hedgepeth (http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/03opinions/03-7149a.pdf)

Totten (http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/03opinions/03-7128a.pdf)

Taucher (http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/04opinions/04-5026a.pdf)

Acree concurrence (http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/03opinions/03-5232a.pdf)

[Felix_Nietsche]

I thought "most qualified" should trump any other considerations. Oh, yeah, this is Felix; sorry.
************************************************
Well 'qualified' jurist have:
*Restricted political speech 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold)
*Granted Orwellian eminent domain powers to local govt where they can seize private propery for PRIVATE USE.
*Usurped state rights by claiming that medical marijuana; grown in California, perscribed in California, and used in California falls under the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution.

If the fools that supported these illegal rulings are 'qualified' then lets try UNQUALIFIED candidates. They will probably do a better job. Having an ORIGINALIST interpretation of the constition should TRUMP everything else. I would rather have a truck driver with an originalist judicial philosophy than a qualified ACLU lawyer (I use to be a big ACLU supporter before they became a bunch of crazies /images/graemlins/frown.gif). At least with an originalist 'truck driver' jurist they could learn how to write judicial opinions OJT (on-the-job training). A judicial activist can not unlearn their unethical beliefs.

The judicial activists have played 'god' for the last 75 years in the USA by voiding legal laws and enacting laws from the bench even though they do not have the authority. It is time to end their tyranny. This new judge will PROBABLY be an improvement over O'Conner. O'Conner was Reagan's worst mistake. Stephens and Ginsberg have had health problems. If we can replace these fools with originalists, the supreme court may actually begin to make lawful decisons again.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought "most qualified" should trump any other considerations. Oh, yeah, this is Felix; sorry.
************************************************
Well 'qualified' jurist have:
*Restricted political speech 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold)
*Granted Orwellian eminent domain powers to local govt where they can seize private propery for PRIVATE USE.
*Usurped state rights by claiming that medical marijuana; grown in California, perscribed in California, and used in California falls under the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution.

If the fools that supported these illegal rulings are 'qualified' then lets try UNQUALIFIED candidates. They will probably do a better job. Having an ORIGINALIST interpretation of the constition should TRUMP everything else. I would rather have a truck driver with an originalist judicial philosophy than a qualified ACLU lawyer (I use to be a big ACLU supporter before they became a bunch of crazies /images/graemlins/frown.gif). At least with an originalist 'truck driver' jurist they could learn how to write judicial opinions OJT (on-the-job training). A judicial activist can not unlearn their unethical beliefs.

The judicial activists have played 'god' for the last 75 years in the USA by voiding legal laws and enacting laws from the bench even though they do not have the authority. It is time to end their tyranny. This new judge will PROBABLY be an improvement over O'Conner. O'Conner was Reagan's worst mistake. Stephens and Ginsberg have had health problems. If we can replace these fools with originalists, the supreme court may actually begin to make lawful decisons again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop posting.

Just stop posting.

[ACPlayer]

Are you offering odds?

I would be very, very surprised if Bush picks a moderate for any replacement.

Like I said in an earlier thread where people were talking about moderate choices -- Bush will do what Dobson wants. So far he has talked about bipartisanship but has not offered a single proposal that could be considered bipartisan.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be very, very surprised if Bush picks a moderate for any replacement.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why would he? We get a balance on the court by sometimes electing Democratic Presidents and sometimes electing Republican Presidents, not by making those presidents appoint judges they don't agree with on their legal philosophy.

[mmbt0ne]

JoshuaMayes, I don't think I've ever seen you around these parts before, but I want to say that, just based on these 3 posts, you're one of the best posters in Politics. Thanks for a lack of rhetoric and name calling.

[ACPlayer]

I didnt say whether he should or not.

I said he will not.

[ QUOTE ]
And why would he? We get a balance on the court by sometimes electing Democratic Presidents and sometimes electing Republican Presidents, not by making those presidents appoint judges they don't agree with on their personal philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[MtSmalls]

I don't think Roberts' confirmation two or three years ago is going to make any difference this time around. Its one thing to put a career DOJ employee on the appellate bench, its another to put a man with less than three years on the Federal Bench on the US Supreme Court.

Roberts has good legal credentials, but very limited experience. There are few if any of his cases from the bench that shed any light on his experience.

What little is available on him currently, I'm sure more will be available over the next few weeks, is that he is a partisan hack, career DOJ stooge, and a purely political appointment. Not to mention an immediate distraction from the Rove scandal.

I'm also sure that the 55 Republicans in the Senate will be behind him. The question remains if they can persuade the another 5 to cross the aisle, IF they can get him out of committee.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
55 Republicans in the Senate will be behind him

[/ QUOTE ]

55 Republicans would be behind dodo the clown if Bush said that he was a "good man".

[JoshuaMayes]

Thanks mmbtOne. I lurk here often, but I rarely post. I, too, dislike the partisan cheerleading and name-calling that comprises many of the threads.

[phlup]

[ QUOTE ]
I predict Roberts will sail through -- no filibuster, no nuclear option. He has friends on both sides of the aisle, he is personally charming, and he has an impeccable C.V. Gang of Fourteen member Joe Lieberman described Roberts as "inside the ballpark," yesterday, which does not bode well for the Dems hoping to muster support for a filibuster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure about this. I'm stealing this quote from another forum where someone stole it from another site. So God only knows who said it.

[ QUOTE ]
Roberts has quite a significant history in trying to undermine abortion rights, including, under the first Bush administration, co-authoring a Supreme Court brief as Deputy Solicitor General for Rust v. Sullivan which argued for the governments ability to prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients.

Among Roberts other writings can be found articles in support of a more expansive reading of the Contracts and Taking clauses of the Constitution, holding positions that would restrict Congress means for environmental protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this from dKosopedia:

[ QUOTE ]
As noted on Law.com Many who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm no pollster or anything but I think Roe v. Wade is actually supported by a good majority of the American people. While the die hard supporters of Bush come from the religious right, you'd be surprised that they don't make up that large a percentage of the American people. This is an issue that won't go unnoticed and will cause some backlash.

I also don't think his stance on endangered species is one that is widely shared. Again, another sticking point.

Many people are looking at this guy as a bit farther right than they really would have expected. And I agree. This isn't Bush's real nomination. This is his decoy.

Roberts will get beaten alive in the senate for his far right views, especially on abortion. Bush knows this and is planning on it. Once Roberts fails in the senate, Bush will come out with his real nomination. Someone a touch more moderate (but still very republican).

Then if the Dems get up to fight again, the GOP machine will jump into overdrive to point out to the public that the whinny liberal are just trying to block Bush's nominees cus they don't like Bush.

Roberts is a political pawn. I'm going with him failing.

Phil

/Oh, and for those of you wearing a tin foil hat like me, Roberts could also be controversial enough to take some of the heat off of Rove for a while. Just a thought.

In fairness to Judge Roberts, I heard something on the radio this morning (the liberal media, go figure), to the effect that he called Roe v. Wade the "settled law of the land" or something like that, when asked about it at his circuit court confirmation. Does that mean that he wouldn't vote to overturn it under any circumstance? Of course not. But it seems to indicate that he respects the principle of stare decisis (as he should), and that there would have to be something very new come down the pike, which has never been considered, for him to consider revisiting the ruling.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
What little is available on him currently, I'm sure more will be available over the next few weeks, is that he is a partisan hack, career DOJ stooge, and a purely political appointment. Not to mention an immediate distraction from the Rove scandal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, way to give the man a fair hearing. A career DOJ stooge? I mean, apart from the fact that he worked extensively in private practice, he held some pretty prestigious positions.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm no pollster or anything but I think Roe v. Wade is actually supported by a good majority of the American people.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't have to be a pollster to look up polls.
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
The answer depends upon how you ask the question. In CBS's recent poll, only 25% supported abortion in all cases, while a combined total of 70% supported either greater restrictions or total elimination of abortion. Only 5% were unsure, but that doesn't make the pro-abortion side look any better. But when asked if they thought Roe was a good decision, more people say yes. So I think people aren't fully informed about what overturning Roe would do. But this is a little off topic.

[ QUOTE ]
Roberts will get beaten alive in the senate for his far right views, especially on abortion. Bush knows this and is planning on it. Once Roberts fails in the senate, Bush will come out with his real nomination. Someone a touch more moderate (but still very republican).

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. It seems like this guy is already gaining Dem support (ie Lieberman). All the GOP needs is a couple people to wander off the reservation.

From the LATimes:
[ QUOTE ]
During his 2003 appeals court confirmation hearing, Roberts said: "Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

[/ QUOTE ]
LAT (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-decisions20jul20,0,6612589.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
So take a deep breath, babykillers.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't think his stance on endangered species is one that is widely shared. Again, another sticking point.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now this is getting dumb. This is what Roberts said/ruled:
[ QUOTE ]
Roberts asked the court to reconsider protection of the arroyo toad under the Endangered Species Act, arguing that there was no interstate commerce rationale for protecting a species that lives only in California. (Rancho Viejo vs. Norton, 2003)

[/ QUOTE ]
From LATimes article.

[MtSmalls]

Roberts is on record as saying that Roe v. Wade was mistake and should be overturned. He made so many appearances before the Supreme Court (nearly 40), that he was well known by the current justices. One of the current justices running jokes, when Roberts would appear, would be to ask him if this was the case that he was arguing to overturn Roe. When Roberts replied, Roe didn't apply to the current case, the Judge's answer was "That's never stopped him before".

If appointed, Robert will work to overturn either Roe or Casey, or both. Regardless of his political views, since when does TWO years on the federal bench qualify anyone for the Supreme Court??

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Roberts is on record as saying that Roe v. Wade was mistake and should be overturned.

[/ QUOTE ]
Misleading at best. This was in a brief that he wrote arguing his client's (Bush I) position on abortion. He is more recently on record as saying "Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

[ QUOTE ]
If appointed, Robert will work to overturn either Roe or Casey, or both.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope so, but if we're to go by what he's most recently stated, this probably won't happen.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of his political views, since when does TWO years on the federal bench qualify anyone for the Supreme Court??

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize there was a "must be a judge for longer than 2 years" rule with regards to SC nominees in our Constitution.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of his political views, since when does TWO years on the federal bench qualify anyone for the Supreme Court??

[/ QUOTE ]

Since 1900, the following justices have served with less judicial experience than Roberts:

Willaim Moody, Horace Lurton, James McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, John Clarke, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Harlan Stone, Charles Hughes, Owen Roberts, Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frakfurter, William Douglas, Frank Murphy, James Byrnes, Robert Jackson, Harold Burton, Tom Clark, Earl Warren, Charles Whittaker, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist.

I am not going to expend the effort to find out how many of the justices appointed before 1900 had significant judicial experience before being appointed to the court, but I suspect that the vast majority of them did not. So, to answer your question, judicial experience has not been a prerequisite to serving on the Supreme Court since the founding of the republic.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Regardless of his political views, since when does TWO years on the federal bench qualify anyone for the Supreme Court??

[/ QUOTE ]

Since 1900, the following justices have served with less judicial experience than Roberts:

Willaim Moody, Horace Lurton, James McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, John Clarke, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Harlan Stone, Charles Hughes, Owen Roberts, Hugo Black, Stanley Reed, Felix Frakfurter, William Douglas, Frank Murphy, James Byrnes, Robert Jackson, Harold Burton, Tom Clark, Earl Warren, Charles Whittaker, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist.

I am not going to expend the effort to find out how many of the justices appointed before 1900 had significant judicial experience before being appointed to the court, but I suspect that the vast majority of them did not. So, to answer your question, judicial experience has not been a prerequisite to serving on the Supreme Court since the founding of the republic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greatest.Politics.Poster.Ever.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Agreed. A very good post.
Anybody that backs their opinions with supporting evidence in this forum deserves kudos.

[MtSmalls]

Point taken. I was unaware that so many of the SCJ's had so little bench experience.

[natedogg]

Here's some good info too:

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/07/blog_roundup_we_6.html#comments

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/separate_opinio.html#trackbacks

[Nytecaster]

Democrats always have an ace in the whole somewhere. I mean unless Bush picked a black female homosexual from the Bronx it would be doomed. Problem is that the right is always fighting this utter bullshit day in and day out from the left. American people are sick of it and is why you see the GOP dominating the congress.

Keep fighting leftist, you are helping the GOP by doing so. After the last two elections I would have thought you would learn but the hatred just snowballs. I am eagerly waiting the implosion.

[Nytecaster]

Felix makes sense, you should listen to him. Put aside your anger and hate first.

[Nytecaster]

Typical leftist, wanting to restrict free speech while claiming to love the constitition. Hypocrit.

[Zoelef]

Not my idea, but...

John Roberts = Two years experience as judge = Most qualified candidate for SC
John Edwards = ~Six years as Senator = unqualified for VP slot

Right?

[trippin bily]

I read the blog and I am still laughing.
The loonies are sooooo funny when they are out of power.
Which in the U.S. is ..... almost always.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Core political beliefs should trump any other consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought "most qualified" should trump any other considerations. Oh, yeah, this is Felix; sorry.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]
Most qualified for the Dems has never been the criteria.
Judge Bork was ( and is ) the most qualified, Dems didnt take to well to him.