Rehnquist Dead at 80

[Justice 0]

I really don't mind 'Young and Vanilla' as CJ. He's probably the most like Rehnquist out of the other 8 there is, and Rehnquist was an incredibly good Justice and Chief Justice.

 

I think Roberts (Who seems to be fairly level-headed as is) is a great choice for a non-offensive, balance keeping AND well-qualified head of the SCOTUS.

[The Czech Republic 0]

He doesn't really have any history or even distinguishing qualities just yet, and as much as people prattle on about "nine old men (and women) in robes! wah!", I feel the head of our judicial branch should be a little up there. Jobber said that Scalia as CJ would be in return for writing the opinion in '00; I'm just afraid that creating The Roberts Court is supposed to be Bush's way of saying "thank you" to the Christian right, the way they've been begging and pleading (and threatening) him to do since he was inaugurated again. If Roberts turns out to be an arm of the evangelicals, that's more dangerous than an unlikable wiseass running the show.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The Roberts Court is supposed to be Bush's way of saying "thank you" to the Christian right, the way they've been begging and pleading (and threatening) him to do since he was inaugurated again. If Roberts turns out to be an arm of the evangelicals, that's more dangerous than an unlikable wiseass running the show.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just don't see Roberts being a stooge for the religious right. For instance look at what he had to say with regards to the Terri Schiavo business:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050809/ap_on_go_co/roberts

 

Roberts met Tuesday with one senator who is undecided on his nomination, Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who said the nominee "would not look favorably" on Congress acting to intervene in an end-of-life case like Terri Schiavo.

 

Wyden said Roberts told him during their hourlong meeting that Congress can prescribe standards, "but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds," Wyden said.

[Styles 0]

And don't forget this, either.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164865,00.html

 

WASHINGTON — John Roberts (search) is coming under scrutiny by both liberal and conservative groups after news got out that he did some pro bono work on behalf of gay-rights activists for a Supreme Court case...

 

...The case in question was Romer vs. Evans. The Supreme Court in 1996 voted, 6 to 3, to strike down a voter-approved Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing...

 

...Roberts did some pro-bono work on the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, helping their lawyers prepare arguments and participate on mock trials. Roberts did not mention his work on the case in responding to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire that asked for examples of his pro bono work.

 

Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for the activists challenging the Colorado initiative, told The LA Times that Roberts gave her "absolutely crucial" advice on how to argue the case.

 

The White House sought to play down Roberts' participation in Romer vs. Evans.

 

I think the chances of Roberts being a lot more moderate than anticipated is much more likely than him being "an arm of the evangelicals" which I've seen no evidence to believe.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

I beleive it was Scalia's notoriously undiplomatic personality that kept him from being nominated for Chief Justice. I would have liked to see Clarence Thomas nominated, but unfortunately I suspect the memory of his 1991 Senate hearings and the resulting circus are still fresh in people's minds 14 years later.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I think Thomas being CJ would've definitely made a big indention on the court, plus Thomas isn't that old so he would've had a lengthy tenure as CJ. I agree that Scalia's persona probably kept him from getting the slot, but I think Thomas was a slam dunk nomination. The Anita Hill issue has come and gone and there wasn't anything to be gained by the left of rehashing history. Even if they had, they would've had to waste so much time fighting him that it would've helped Roberts & Rehnquist's replacement.

 

The only big reason I see Roberts getting the CJ slot is b/c Bush wanted a full court before October 3rd (because O'Connor said she won't leave until she has a replacement which I imagine we'll see after Roberts goes through). In other words, we are now replacing Rehnquist instead of O'Connor so this confirmation battle may not be that bad as Dems save their ammunition for the next round in case Bush goes the route of a Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen.

[Ace309 0]

I would have preferred temporarily elevating Justice O'Connor to Chief Justice, as I had heard discussed, while waiting for the court to settle a bit before appointing another Justice. I'm sure Sandy would have been along for the ride, and as a moderate she by definition would have pissed off the fewest people.

 

After Kanye West got on the stick at the NBC telethon, and then I heard that Rehnquist died, my first thought was, "Fuck. Chief Justice Thomas."

 

All things being equal, though, I'd much prefer Scalia or Thomas to be appointed to the center chair than appointing someone from outside the court. I understand that it's more expedient, and that Roberts is essentially a baby Rehnquist (having clerked for him and such), but I have the idiosyncratic opinion that the CJotUS should be elevated from the current court. (Idiosyncratic because of the 16 previous Chief Justices, only three were elevated from the bench - four, if you count Taft, who was President before he was appointed to the center chair.)

[Dr. Zaius 0]

After Kanye West got on the stick at the NBC telethon, and then I heard that Rehnquist died, my first thought was, "Fuck. Chief Justice Thomas."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point, but I think the President probably believes that having two consecutive African-American Secretaries of State insulates him from any and all criticism on the issue of race.

[Slayer 0]

I, too, tend to lean toward the opinion that CJ should be a promotion from the AJ position, in the same sense of when you promote someone to management, you typically go to one of the next guys down on the chain-o-command, rather than bring in a total stranger from outside (however qualified he might be)

 

I know it's slightly disadvantageous in that you have two confirmation hearings instead of one (one for the new CJ and one for his replacement) but it makes more sense to me

[SuperJerk 0]

After Kanye West got on the stick at the NBC telethon, and then I heard that Rehnquist died, my first thought was, "Fuck. Chief Justice Thomas."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point, but I think the President probably believes that having two consecutive African-American Secretaries of State insulates him from any and all criticism on the issue of race.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush isn't the only one who thinks that.

 

Appointing an African-American to a prominent position is the political equivalent of saying "some of my best friends are black".

[The Czech Republic 0]

After Kanye West got on the stick at the NBC telethon, and then I heard that Rehnquist died, my first thought was, "Fuck. Chief Justice Thomas."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point, but I think the President probably believes that having two consecutive African-American Secretaries of State insulates him from any and all criticism on the issue of race.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush isn't the only one who thinks that.

 

Appointing an African-American to a prominent position is the political equivalent of saying "some of my best friends are black".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But he's giving the jobs to two very qualified individuals in Powell and Rice. It's not as if he's plugging in women/minorities here and there to make the Cabinet That Looks Like America. If you're going to say he gave SoS to blacks twice just to prove he wasn't racist, you'd have to concede that Clinton appointing Albright and Reno was just to prove he respected women, since it's not like Janet Reno can fall back on merit.

[snuffbox 0]

How does appointing 'James' Reno have anything to do with respecting women?

[The Czech Republic 0]

Got me there.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

How does appointing 'James' Reno have anything to do with respecting women?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Clinton probably figured that with Reno, he was covering at least half of the minority positions in one shot.

 

Albright was a pretty good SoS, certainly one of the most capable members of Clinton's cabinet.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

After Kanye West got on the stick at the NBC telethon, and then I heard that Rehnquist died, my first thought was, "Fuck. Chief Justice Thomas."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting point, but I think the President probably believes that having two consecutive African-American Secretaries of State insulates him from any and all criticism on the issue of race.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush isn't the only one who thinks that.

 

Appointing an African-American to a prominent position is the political equivalent of saying "some of my best friends are black".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But he's giving the jobs to two very qualified individuals in Powell and Rice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Appointing Powell and Rice has nothing to do with how his policies effect the other 37 million black people living in the U.S.

 

They happen to be two very qualified individuals, but appointing them does not insulate Bush from any and all criticism of his policies as they pertain to African-Americans.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Come on. Writing dissents like that are the next best thing to doing them MikeSC-style.

 

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

The 14th Amendment is a CREATION of the potted meat industry AND the liberal media. Even mentioning it here is proof that YOU are an utter moron.

 

The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests.

 

You are little more than somebody who believes in creationism. You seek for ANY scientific basis to explain away your illogical beliefs. You don't have shit to fall back on and are upset because you're not used to having people who DON'T blindly accept your theory of fact as reality.

 

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

 

There's no turning back now. Your mommy's not here to help you.

 

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall.

 

Economic boondoggles.

[The Czech Republic 0]

File this dissent under "tough shit"

[Ace309 0]

So, uh, Edith Brown Clement for $200, Alex.

 

I'm more or less sure of it now.

[SuperJerk 0]

Roberts grilled on abortion, civil rights

Nominee draws Democrats’ ire for ducking queries at confirmation hearing

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 6:27 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2005

 

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts jousted with Democratic senators Tuesday at his confirmation hearing to be chief justice, dodging their attempts to pin down his opinions on abortion, voting rights and other legal issues.

 

Roberts said he felt the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent” and that the Constitution provides a right to privacy. Questioned by the lone woman on the panel, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Roberts referred to the “settled expectations” of society three decades after the abortion decision.

 

“People expect that that the law is going to be what the court has told them what the law will be,” Roberts said.

 

But when senators pressed for details on his opinions — even to the point of interrupting his answers — Roberts said repeatedly that he shouldn’t address some issues that could come before the Supreme Court with him as chief justice.

 

A testy moment

At one point, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who has indicated he may run for president in 2008, accused Roberts of “filibustering.”

 

“Go ahead and continue not to answer,” said Biden. Later, he interrupted Roberts and when criticized, insisted, “His answers are misleading, with all due respect.”

 

“Wait a minute! Wait a minute! They may be misleading but they are his answers,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee chairman.

 

Roberts — who had noted that Biden earlier would have heard an entire answer if he hadn’t interrupted — kept his cool.

 

“With respect, they are my answers and with respect, they are not misleading,” he said.

 

Questions about balance of power

Senators questioned President Bush’s choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist on abortion, privacy, voting rights and the balance of power between the branches of government. Roberts frequently answered through the prism of legal precedent but declined to address specifics.

 

The heart of the abortion ruling is “settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts said.

 

Still, review and revisions have been the hallmark of the high court on issues from integration to gay rights, and Roberts indicated that groundbreaking cases can draw a second look.

 

“If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable, they don’t lead to predictable results, they’re difficult to apply, that’s one factor supporting reconsideration,” Roberts said.

 

If confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts would be the youngest chief justice in 200 years, with the power to shape the high court for decades. Democrats and Republicans see no major obstacles to his winning Senate approval and joining the other justices when the new term begins Oct. 3.

 

In his answers on abortion, Roberts focused on a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, referring to that as a precedent-setting case in addition to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

 

In the Pennsylvania case, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the core holdings of Roe v. Wade and ban states from outlawing most abortions. The court said states could impose restrictions on the procedure that do not impose an “undue burden” on women.

 

“It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade,” Roberts said.

 

Bush originally nominated Roberts to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court’s crucial swing vote who announced her plans to retire in July. Within days of Rehnquist’s death on Sept. 3, Bush tapped Roberts to be chief justice.

 

Democrats pressed the appellate judge about his writings on civil rights while a young lawyer in the Reagan administration two decades ago. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., described some of those writings as a “narrow, cramped and mean-spirited view” that failed to show a full appreciation of discrimination.

 

Roberts says personal faith plays no role

Under questioning from Kennedy, Roberts said that he had no problem with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. “The constitutionality has been upheld, and I don’t have any issue with that.”

 

The nominee dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he were confirmed, bringing the number of Catholics on the court to a historic high of four. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.

 

“My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in my judging,” Roberts said in afternoon testimony.

 

Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited several amendments in the Bill of Rights and said, “The court has explained that the liberty protected is not limited to freedom from physical restraint.”

 

Roberts also said he agreed with the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut that established the right of privacy on the sale and use of contraceptives.

 

On other issues:

 

—Roberts rejected the notion of finding precedent in foreign law. In ruling on the use of the death penalty against minors, the Supreme Court this year noted the standards and rules of other nations. Roberts said that sort of citation expands the discretion of a jurist, and “that’s a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent.”

 

—Roberts said the Constitution specifically gives the power to declare war to Congress, and in response to questions about interrogation and torture, said, “No one is above the law and that includes the president.”

 

—The nominee rejected terms such as originalist and constructionist. “When pressed I prefer to be known as a modest judge.”

 

Moments of humor

Levity had its moments during the daylong session. Roberts, up for a lifetime appointment, dismissed the argument he made two decades ago in which he backed term limits for judges.

 

“That would be one of those memos that I no longer agree with,” he said, to laughter in the crowd.

 

He also expressed his support for equality in the workplace, countering previous memos that suggested women should not work outside the home, especially in the legal profession. “I married a lawyer, I was raised with three sisters who work outside the home,” said Roberts, who added that he would push to ensure his daughter has the same rights as her brother.

 

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren’t surprised by Roberts’ comments but would watch him closely.

 

“We’re concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it’s time for him to rule on these cases as a justice,” Newman said.

 

Abortion rights groups found little comfort in Roberts’ answers. “John Roberts failed to state whether he believes the right to privacy includes a woman’s right to choose as recognized in Roe v. Wade,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

 

Roberts’ opponents complained that he was ducking specific questions — as they had expected.

 

“He’s obviously playing a game of dodgeball,” said Ralph Neas, head of the liberal People of the American Way.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/

 

If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

[The Czech Republic 0]

If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Some of his memos and shit worry me, but his seemingly unequivocal affirmation of Griswold makes his seem alright to me.

 

Then again, Thomas said he was committed to stare decisis in his hearings and then, upon taking his seat, railed against Roe.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hardly see what's gone on so far as "going to war". It's more like the Senators eyeing a 2008 run are doing some grandstanding to get face time in the press. This has been fairly tame as far as congressional hearings go.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Fuck him.  Seriously, fuck him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Czech Republic 0]

If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hardly see what's gone on so far as "going to war". It's more like the Senators eyeing a 2008 run are doing some grandstanding to get face time in the press. This has been fairly tame as far as congressional hearings go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently Biden and Kennedy were really out of line.

[SuperJerk 0]

If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hardly see what's gone on so far as "going to war". It's more like the Senators eyeing a 2008 run are doing some grandstanding to get face time in the press. This has been fairly tame as far as congressional hearings go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kennedy's not running for anything in 2008.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hardly see what's gone on so far as "going to war". It's more like the Senators eyeing a 2008 run are doing some grandstanding to get face time in the press. This has been fairly tame as far as congressional hearings go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kennedy's not running for anything in 2008.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah but it's Ted Kennedy, what did you expect?

[SuperJerk 0]

If he is being sincere, I would have a hard time finding a reason to oppose him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you're not a senator, I guess. Seems like the Democrats are going to war on this one regardless of what a waste of time it is to try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hardly see what's gone on so far as "going to war". It's more like the Senators eyeing a 2008 run are doing some grandstanding to get face time in the press. This has been fairly tame as far as congressional hearings go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kennedy's not running for anything in 2008.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah but it's Ted Kennedy, what did you expect?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I expect him to vehemently oppose any person ever nominated by a Republican for anything, ever, but I'm just saying he's not doing it because he's running.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

How much respect do we have to feign for William Rehnquist when he dies?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[SuperJerk 0]

Someone needs to post the pic of his son dancing during the inital nomination.

[The Robfather 0]

Jack Roberts will dance on top all the Dems who vote against his dad.

 

 

 

 

He also doesn't like listening to them talk...