Shit, meet the Fan

[snuffbox 0]

It looks like good ol Johnboy Roberts is the guy Bush picked. He favors overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

A nice, compassionate decision...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Yay 15 years of silly social conservatism!

[NoCalMike 0]

Wasn't Bush quoted last week saying he wanted a nominee with "Mainstream Values" because overturning Roe V Wade is certainly not a mainstream value.

[snuffbox 0]

Bush's speech in a few minutes should be swell...

[NoCalMike 0]

Fill me in on the talking points.....I am in class.

[snuffbox 0]

Blah blah blah...hes a good man, etc. Nothing earthshattering and kept pretty short. Basically just a brief bio and career retrospective with a bunch of compliments.

 

Roberts thanked Bush, his family, and looked forward to the confirmation process.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh boy, social conservatism!

 

 

I know the Democrats will have a conniption because he's pretty dead-set against abortion, but I await to see where the Gang Of 14 goes before I start pulling out tissue boxes.

[Slickster 0]

I think it's clear that not even Bush expects Roberts to get nominated. He only needs a new bad guy for the media to focus on (to take the heat off of Karl Rove). Now, the Dems will be falling all over themselves to filibuster this guy, which I'm sure they will manage to do. When Bush's REAL nominee gets revealed in a couple of months, the Republicans will talk about how the Democrats are blocking the progress of government, etc. Dems will realize they now look like whiners, so they will let choice #2 pass without incident.

 

Result: Bush gets the nominee he wanted all along, Karl Rove is out of the spotlight, and the Democrats look even worse heading into 2006.

[Justice 0]

You know, when you look at everything in terms of Roe v. Wade, it'll always be controversial. Seriously, would it be completely okay if he favored someone who supported it?

 

Now that that's out of the way, what are his other views?

[SuperJerk 0]

We'll never know.

 

 

Abortion's one issue where I'll agree there's definitely a mainstream media bias.

 

 

And don't forget, the Senate's top Democrat is against abortion himself. Meanwhile the rest of the Democrats insist there not be a "litmus test" for the Supreme Court, while automatically being against anyone who doesn't think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

 

 

I, on the other hand, found a MUCH better reason to be against the guy.

 

During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign.

 

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/sco...main/index.html

Edited July 20, 2005 by Y2Jerk

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well what is it, something like 65% of the country that thinks it should be left as is? I don't think Roe should be bulletproof, but people's opinions on the immunity of fetuses have swung since then. Plus, people don't like having their access to something taken away by the government, even if it's to something they don't like.

 

Then again:

 

Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Roberts did help write a brief that stated ``we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'' Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: ``Roe v. 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.''

 

Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

 

http://www.lawyernews.com/2005/07/guardian...rld-latest.html

 

I don't know WTF to make of it. I still wouldn't be suprised if they expect a partisan hack because they picked a guy so young.

[Vyce 0]

He's gonna get in.

 

Just suck it up, cause it's going to happen.

[SuperJerk 0]

Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Roberts did help write a brief that stated ``we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'' Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: ``Roe v. 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.''

 

Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

 

http://www.lawyernews.com/2005/07/guardian...rld-latest.html

 

I don't know WTF to make of it. I still wouldn't be suprised if they expect a partisan hack because they picked a guy so young.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Once he's on the Supreme Court, the only precedent he'll have to follow is his own interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, any lip-service about obeying precendents is null and void once he takes the bench.

 

Even if he makes it, the anti-abortion faction of the Court will only have 4 members though.

[Justice 0]

Don't worry. We're expecting the arsenic to start working on Breyers and Ginsberg soon enough.

[NoCalMike 0]

I, on the other hand, found a MUCH better reason to be against the guy.

 

During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign.

 

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/sco...main/index.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wow, why am I not suprised.

[snuffbox 0]

I, on the other hand, found a MUCH better reason to be against the guy.

 

During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign.

 

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/sco...main/index.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Disgusting.

[NoCalMike 0]

Something tends to make me believe Bush left off his career highlight of being on the team of republican lawyers who assisted Bush's campaign.

[snuffbox 0]

He forgot that part...

[NoCalMike 0]

He forgot that part...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah wouldn't that have been just wonderful if he came out and during the speech he said, "I just want to think Mr. Roberts for all his hard work assisting my campaign team in 2000....ooooh errr awwww GAH"

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I don't see how the Dems are gonna block this guy. If they filibuster they will be obstructionist and if they do filibuster I think the nuclear option gets pushed through b/c the Gang of 14's GOP buddies know that if they allow one to continue they'll get fried in the next round of their primary elections.

 

Plus, Roberts was confirmed UNANIMOUSLY I believe when he was sent to the DC Court of Appeals TWO YEARS AGO. I think it's going to be hard for the Dems to block someone that got unanimous approval such a limited time ago. After all, if he had credentials then to be a federal circuit judge then why does he not have proper credentials now? Also, this guy doesn't have too much of a paper trail and he hasn't authored many opinions to keep him off of a Supreme Court seat. Just b/c he worked for Bush's campaign in 2000 also doesn't DQ him.

 

I don't see what the big fuss is over abortion at this point anyway. There is still going to be a 5-4 balance if Roberts gets on so the Dems don't need to waste their political capital here b/c god forbid if something happens to Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, or Stevens (especially since he's 85) they'll has lost a chance to stop the REAL swing that would take place.

 

I think this whole thing about a "consensus" pick is pure B.S. Democrats didn't vote for Bush in the last election so they have no right to argue for a choice that suits their needs. I'm not surprised by this choice b/c it's "payback time" for Bush to the religious right wing of his party that got him elected. After all, the Democrats and their political action committees/interest group already had prepared statements for whoever the person he chose was claiming they are 'disappointed' and stuff. Oh well, tough, that's life for you. If they had actually focused on a MESSAGE the last election and offered some ALTERNATIVES they'd be modeling the court, not Bush.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I'm more wary of the fact that he worked with Kenneth Starr than any of this Roe v. Wade stuff myself.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

So now we can start disqualifying Supreme Court nominees because they worked with someone? Wow, did they catch a contagious germ or something?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

This dude's dumb.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

LOL, I was being sarcastic.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I don't see how the Dems are gonna block this guy.  If they filibuster they will be obstructionist and if they do filibuster I think the nuclear option gets pushed through b/c the Gang of 14's GOP buddies know that if they allow one to continue they'll get fried in the next round of their primary elections.

 

It's almost certain the Democrats will filibuster. The question comes down to whether the 7 Democrats in G-14 choose loyalty to the party or loyalty to the gang. They already agreed to do an intervention-style meeting if someone feels the need to break away and filibuster, which I have to admit is something I find kind of funny.

 

The Republicans in G-14 don't seem to care as much about whether a party puppet goes to the court or not as much as they do preserving the filibuster. They're not so short-sighted to see that if they strip away minority powers now, it may bite them in the ass in some future point when Democrats stop losing every election.

 

I think this whole thing about a "consensus" pick is pure B.S.  Democrats didn't vote for Bush in the last election so they have no right to argue for a choice that suits their needs.

 

The job of a Supreme Court Justice ought to be about choosing the best possible person for the job, not just adhering to a platform or ideology. Democrats didn't vote for Reagan, either, but he still consulted with Congress and managed to choose a candidate who was a conservative, BUT, made decisions based off what she believes the law said, not what she thinks the law SHOULD be. I think the feeling of dread a lot of people have is that you know that whoever Dubya picks is not going to have that same quality.

 

I'm not surprised by this choice b/c it's "payback time" for Bush to the religious right wing of his party that got him elected.

 

Why? He's not getting re-elected. It's not like he's going to need votes for anything again, since people don't serve as President for two terms and then run for another office or anything.

 

After all, the Democrats and their political action committees/interest group already had prepared statements for whoever the person he chose was claiming they are 'disappointed' and stuff.  Oh well, tough, that's life for you.  If they had actually focused on a MESSAGE the last election and offered some ALTERNATIVES they'd be modeling the court, not Bush.

 

There will always be people who attack Bush no matter what and people who will always carry his water even if he mugged old people on camera. The point, again, is the best person for the job.

 

Are you telling me that the best American, in the whole country, to serve as Supreme Court Justice is the attorney who argued Dubya's case in the legal dispute over the Florida ballots? And there's not a SINGLE LIVING AMERICAN more qualified?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

LOL, I was being sarcastic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't referring to you, but if you keep thinking the best person for the job is, as Jobber said, this guy, I might have to start.

[snuffbox 0]

What would Republicans have thought if, say, Bill Clinton had selected one of his attorneys for SCOTUS?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Okay, I'm posting again, because you know what? The more I read about this guy, the more and more I'm thinking that I passed judgment on him too soon because of who appointed him. I hope I'm right.

 

The most scandalous thing in here seems to be that he defended some security officer's handcuffing and detaining of a 12 year old for eating in a no eating zone, because it didn't infringe on anyone's personal rights. While some are saying that makes him less than a great person, it's technically a correct decision as a judge to make, and the blame for not cutting a 12 year old some slack lays on the shoulders of the security guy, not the judge.

 

That said, I still have strong doubts that this is really the best possible candidate for the job, but at least I don't think I'm going to wake up tomorrow and find that minority rights have reverted back 50 years.

 

 

EDIT:

For the Senate, the Strategic Dance Begins

 

WASHINGTON, July 19 - President Bush's selection of Judge John G. Roberts as the nation's first Supreme Court nominee in 11 years set off an immediate round of partisan maneuvering in the Senate on Tuesday night. Republicans praised Judge Roberts as a distinguished, intelligent jurist who deserved quick confirmation, while Democrats voiced reservations, even as they acknowledged the judge's strong legal résumé.

 

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. "The Senate must review Judge Roberts's record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to core values of freedom, equality and fairness."

 

Although they conceded that Judge Roberts had "an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor," in the words of Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, Democrats sought to push the debate toward Judge Roberts's scant judicial record - he has been an appeals court judge for just two years - and his unwillingness to answer certain questions in his earlier confirmation hearings.

 

He was confirmed in May 2003 without a roll-call vote after an agreement of both parties in the Senate, though he did draw some opposition in the Judiciary Committee, where the vote in favor of him was 16 to 3. Mr. Schumer, who was among those voting against Judge Roberts at that time, said Tuesday night that despite Democrats' earlier support, the Senate must now start anew.

 

"It's tabula rasa that way," he said.

 

Republicans said that Judge Roberts's earlier confirmation vote would make it difficult for Democrats to use the filibuster to block him from ascending to the Supreme Court, but Mr. Schumer would not rule out the tactic.

 

His comments came as members of the two parties tried to set the stage for what will be one of the most closely watched events in recent Senate history. In the Capitol, scrutiny of Judge Roberts will begin in earnest on Wednesday, when he is expected to meet with leading senators, including Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat.

 

The parties began staking out their ground within minutes of Mr. Bush's announcement on Tuesday night. Democrats withheld judgment and promised careful scrutiny, but Republicans praised Judge Roberts as "an outstanding nominee who will make America proud," in the words of Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader.

 

Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, said, "I don't think there's any way there will be a filibuster of John Roberts." Mr. Santorum called Judge Roberts "exactly what this court needs."

 

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama and a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he believed that Democrats had initially intended to block Judge Roberts's confirmation as an appeals court judge. But Mr. Sessions said criticism evaporated after the judge's strong performance in his confirmation hearings.

 

"I believe he's the best witness I've seen testify at the Judiciary Committee," he said. "He was poised, competent, honest and direct."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics...?pagewanted=all

 

Endorsed by a lot of people I can't stand, but oh well.

 

 

EDIT 2: Oh boy, he supports a flag burn banning as Constitutional. That said, I still don't think he's any kind of a fundie loon, and take comfort in it. We could have gotten worse.

[Justice 0]

Dear God, this is so fucking stupid.

 

A literal shit-ton of the best lawyers in the country worked on the Bush v. Gore case for the Supreme Court. People like NoCal who are going "Wow, how couldn't we expect that?", there are few top lawyers who didn't work on that. Seriously, the best were called out 2000, and for either side, serving in that dibacle is still a pretty big badge of honor: This isn't something they'd risk a party hack on, this is something they brought out the biggest and the best for. So please, when talking about that as some sort of disadvantage, consider that he was called in to work on the biggest case in the century or so. That should speak to some credentials.

 

Jesus, stop looking at a bunch of little sensationalistic, partisan details and actually consider qualifications for once. Christ.

 

And I'll even say I'm not completely sold on this guy yet, but I'm not being as dumb as some people are for dismissing him out of hand because 1) One issue they disagree with him on 2) OMG HE WAS PART OF BUSH V. GORE.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's an okay arguement, but the reason for the OMG BUSH V GORE complaining still exists. This guy is an insider. I'll agree that in two years of judicial experience there's nothing that scares the crap out of me, but he's been involved with the Bush legacy at least as far back as being nominated by Senior.

 

I think there's a segment of people who are tired of the very subtle cronyism. Other people in seats of power do it, too, but it just happens so much here, and it's almost comedic with this team because they've done so much of it in just eight years.