Rehnquist Dead at 80

[Justice 0]

Bwuahahahahaha... That's hilarious. The mom keeps looking at him like "He's not my child, he's not my child..."

[SuperJerk 0]

You gotta love parents who dress their kid like its 1930.

[Justice 0]

Looking again, he looks like he's doing a TO Touchdown celebration or something in those pictures.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Did he have to listen to Joe Biden too?

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Bwuahahahahaha... That's hilarious. The mom keeps looking at him like "He's not my child, he's not my child..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is actually true. Their children were adopted.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bwuahahahahaha... That's hilarious. The mom keeps looking at him like "He's not my child, he's not my child..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is actually true. Their children were adopted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wikipedia to the rescue...

 

Roberts married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996, and they live in the Washington suburb of Bethesda, Maryland.

 

Roberts and his wife adopted two infants in 2000 after being unable to conceive: Josephine ("Josie") and Jack Roberts. Jack's dancing during Bush's White House introduction of his father brought the four-year-old international media attention. Roberts and his wife are Roman Catholics who regularly attend Msgr. Peter Vaghi's Little Flower Parish in Bethesda, Maryland.

credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#...and_memberships

 

Yeah, I thought they were a little old to have toddlers.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

I'd be interested in knowing if you can find a Wikipedia article that explains what I had for breakfast this morning.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'd be interested in knowing if you can find a Wikipedia article that explains what I had for breakfast this morning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dr. Zaius 0]

[SuperJerk 0]

Czech is god.

[The Robfather 0]

double post... opps

[The Robfather 0]

BTW, a day ago, the New York Times editoral page urged senators not to confirm John Roberts.

[2GOLD 0]

BTW, a day ago, the New York Times editoral page urged senators not to confirm John Roberts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In other news, humans need to breathe air to avoid death.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Does the new york times have any better options?

 

::yawn::

[Justice 0]

BTW, a day ago, the New York Times editoral page urged senators not to confirm John Roberts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I honestly want to read this, just to see how fucking crazy it is.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

From The New York Times editorial:

 

“John Roberts failed to live up to the worst fears of his critics in his confirmation hearings last week. But in many important areas where senators wanted to be reassured that he would be a careful guardian of Americans' rights, he refused to give any solid indication of his legal approach. That makes it difficult to decide whether he should be confirmed. Weighing the pluses and minuses and the many, many unanswered questions, and considering some of the alternatives, a responsible senator might still conclude that he warrants approval. But the unknowns about Mr. Roberts's views remain troubling, especially since he is being nominated not merely to the Supreme Court, but to be chief justice. That position is too important to entrust to an enigma, which is what Mr. Roberts remains….

 

“If he is confirmed, we think there is a chance Mr. Roberts could be a superb chief justice. But it is a risk. We might be reluctant to roll the dice even for a nomination for associate justice, but for a nomination for a chief justice - particularly one who could serve 30 or more years - the stakes are simply too high. Senators should vote against Mr. Roberts not because they know he does not have the qualities to be an excellent chief justice, but because he has not met the very heavy burden of proving that he does.”

 

From The Washington Post:

 

“John G. Roberts should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

 

“This is not to say we expect that as chief justice, Judge Roberts will always rule as we would like. Reading the tea leaves of any justice's future votes is a dicey business. But on a number of important issues, Judge Roberts seems likely to take positions that we will not support. His backing of presidential powers, and willingness to limit civil liberties, appear worrisomely large, while his deference to congressional authority relative to the states may be too small. He appears more suspicious of affirmative action than we think the court should be, and his view of certain civil rights protections has been narrow. Given his comments about precedent and the right to privacy, we do not believe a Chief Justice Roberts will be eager to overturn federal abortion rights. But we recognize that he might end up supporting that unfortunate step, as the late chief justice William H. Rehnquist did unsuccessfully. These are all risks, but they are risks the public incurred in reelecting President Bush.

 

“Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president ….”

[SuperJerk 0]

Senators should vote against Mr. Roberts not because they know he does not have the qualities to be an excellent chief justice, but because he has not met the very heavy burden of proving that he does.

 

That's pretty fucking weak.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, pretty much. It's sad they can't even really mount a defense against him other than "It's not about what we know, it's about what we don't know. Oh, and don't ask us what we don't know, because we don't even know what we don't know."

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Exactly.

[The Robfather 0]

Harry Reid made it known he opposes Roberts. I bet it will be a party line vote out of the judiciary committee, which is a shame. When the vote comes before the full Senate, Roberts should not get less votes than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in my opinion.

[SuperJerk 0]

There's no political gain for Democrats to support Roberts, even if Roberts isn't the right-wing whack-job they thought Bush might appoint. If he ends up being a good Justice, no one will care; if he ends up being terrible, they can just point and say "We tried to stop him!"

[The Robfather 0]

Unless they Filibuster, they will not have tired to stop him.

 

(as for being a whack-job Justice, I think its been made clear Ginsburg is one, yet the Dems supported her)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Does the new york times have any better options?

 

::yawn::

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does anybody? The guy is really smart and I sort of like him, but an ideal candidate doesn't sit there with a smile on his face because he knows he's in like Flynn. Just a sign of the times, I guess.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

(as for being a whack-job Justice, I think its been made clear Ginsburg is one, yet the Dems supported her)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is Ginsburg a whackjob? Because she's liberal?

 

Guess you recommended Ginsburg to Clinton? Orin "Bee" Hatch.

[The Robfather 0]

I'm well aware that Hatch recommended her to Clinton. Doesn't change my opinion of her. He did it based on her qualifications, obviously not her whackjob judicial philosophy.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Right to privacy?

 

Gender equality?

 

You still haven't said why you think she's a "whackjob."

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And I would assume that you are a fan of the Thomas and Scalia's originalism. Which is now pretty much defunct and obscure, except for on the nation's highest court. So if you wanna really talk whackjobs, look at those two. Scalia has said himself, "You could fire a grapefruit out of a cannon over the best law schools in the country - and that includes Chicago - and not hit an originalist."

[SuperJerk 0]

I'd think Scalia could come up with a better analogy.