Discuss...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
pro-life, called Roe constitutionally unsound.
His confirmation to his current judicial seat was not unanimous, btw.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I looked this guy up back when the Washington Post first put its list of likely candidates together. He's really not bad. Very experienced. Not a major idealogue.
His stand on Roe v Wade is not so clear cut as Storm makes it sound, btw. The word has floated that he was presenting the views of the administration he worked for at the time (Bush I) rather than expressing his personal views on the subject. We don't really know what his personal views are.
And, to GWB's credit, the list of candidates was comprised of mostly darn good people and this particular candidate is by no means the worst of the bunch. In fact, he seems pretty solid.
Maybe I'll learn more about him and have to revise that opinion somewhat, but for now, I'm thinking he looks like a pretty good choice.
The fact that he's 50 could be good and could be bad. If he sucks, he'll have way too many years on the bench. On the other hand, if he's good, it'll be nice to have someone sensible in there for a good long time.
Also, I'm heartened by the overall fact that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court tends to give a person a certain amount of independence, no matter what political process was used to tap him for the job.
But, having said that, I'm reading some very good things about how Bush went about this process. I'll even go so far as to say I'm impressed by what I've heard about his prior consultations with members of the Senate.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm feeling a cautiously optimistic 7 at the moment.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
He clerked for Rehnquist. That pretty much says it all.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he 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 Constitution.”
That's the quote that's being bandied about. Some people are arguing that he "had" to make a very strong pro-life argument as that was required by the case that he was arguing, however it's pretty clear that if Bush nominated someone who wasn't 'pro-life' and didn't work to roll back Roe, there would be a tremendous backlash, as many conservatives feel that Bush ran on nominating pro-life justices to the SC. They feel that they (pro-life conservatives) put him into office, so he must nominate someone pro-life or betray both his word and his base. I've heard many people on the various conservative talkshows swear they would revolt against the Repubs if Bush didn't nominate somone pro-life.
Given the fact that Bush is pro-life himself, ran on the platform, has a significant portion of his base who would go nuts if his nomination wasn't pro-life, and given the previous statements by Roberts, it's extremely unlikely that Roberts wouldn't work to roll back Roe.
Yes, we all know justices change on the bench, so while it is possible he might leave Roe unchanged, I find it extremely unlikely that the Repubs are going to nominate someone they didn't feel pretty strongly was against Roe.
[ July 19, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm with Bob on this one. The choice certainly could have been worse and he is very experienced.
Chances are, he'll probably follow in O'Conner's footsteps more than just in using her old chair there. Conservative-leaning moderate, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I figured, however, that a woman would be most likely to be nominated.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I think Sopwith and Bob are naive.
But I hope they are correct.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Chances are, he'll probably follow in O'Conner's footsteps more than just in using her old chair there. Conservative-leaning moderate, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
*blink*
What evidence is out there that this guy is anything like a moderate? On what do you base this claim? Everything that I've read about him points to him being a down the line conservative.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, isn't the fact that he's only been a judge for a few months kind of a huge point against him?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I guess I just have this innocence about me that says a person nominated to the Supreme Court, if they are to have the slightest chance of getting the final nod, will have to be moderate enough for a consensus to be gathered in the Senate.
In addition, holding the Constitution first and foremost would tend to make the person moderate in position if not politics.
Lastly, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence as to this guy being a hard-boiled conservative or a neo-con.
But I'm sure something will be drudged up or alluded to before it's all said and done.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sen. John R. Warner (R-Va.) hailed him as "a good choice." Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) had previously identified him as a choice who would not trigger a Democratic filibuster. Both senators were among 14 lawmakers -- seven Republicans and seven Democrats -- who pushed through a compromise that averted a Senate showdown over the blockage of Bush judicial nominees through filibusters.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Storm, he's been a judge for over two years, not a few months. Still not a long time, but there's no need to make it sound shorter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and my prediction coincides with Kayla's and Storms.
To which I say, woohoo!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And the fact that Dags agrees with Stormy and I should scare the crap out of the "liberals" on the board. The only other Justices he could have clerked for who would have been worse would have been Thomas or Scalia.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
Scalia usually has at least one of his clerks be oppsing in philosphy to him...to challange him....so, don't read everything into his clerkship....but taken all together.....
I think it could have been a lot worse for each party...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kayla, the clerking aspect isn't really as dispositive as you seem to think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was a voice vote, which meant there was no serious opposition, but there might have been nays.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is not to say that Judge Roberts's nomination will proceed without controversy. At least one of his opinions since joining the D.C. Circuit raises a concern about his views of the balance of power between the federal government and the states. In that case, Judge Roberts intimated that he might take a very narrow view of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce -- the constitutional foundation of much of modern federal law. Judge Roberts poetically questioned whether "the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California constitutes regulating 'Commerce . . . among the several States.' " Senators will need to explore whether he envisions a dramatic revision of federal power.
O'Connor was pretty firmly in the Rehnquist with regards to reigning in the commerce clause (which incidentally, I don't fully agree with them on). Appointing Roberts does not change the balance on this issue, although it means the balance won't be affected the other way, either.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dagonee, it wasn't intentional. I just misread his bio.
Adam, his judicial nomination was blocked for two years in the committee, and as Dagonee posted, there was a voice vote so there are no records of who voted how, just that he passed.
I just think of how we could have had Bork but got Kennedy. And how we got messed over with Souter. I’m happy with him. Just hopeful he’s what he seems to be.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's exactly because so much is unknown about Roberts that the confirmation process for him should be extremely probing and he should not be coy in his responses.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Can someone explain to me how abortion violates the constitution?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I think there is something in the constitution that talks about being “deprived of life” hence an abortion would violate the constitution in that way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Only if the fetus is considered a person, which it isn't, legally. And also, that's without due process, which will vary from situation to situation, and is in some cases very simple.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
fugu, do you realize the irony of adding "that's without due process" to your post?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, just like many people didn’t used to be considered people under our constitution.
Adam - Well…. I’m sure Harry Reid is hoping he’s really liberal, where I’m hoping he’s really conservative.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I think he is a reasonable choice. He isn't fringe neo-con, rabid, or an outer space alien. All of those are good things, in my book. (Heartlight? I don't think so. {-- joking)
I disagree with him aplenty, but he seems to have a sound legal mind. We just come to different conclusions.
(I would have preferred O'Conner to stay, naturally, but I would also prefer for her not to have so much going on in her life right now. )
Edit: my favored replacement choice would have been Edith Brown Clement, but among the range of choices Bush could have been expected to make, Roberts doesn't strike me as a bad one. I didn't expect a liberal, for goodness' sake.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613: Interesting Coulter piece.
There's no such thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: none whatsoever, as no position was being advocated beyond that an abortion may not be made unlawful by that part of the constitution for obvious and easily understood, if not always agreed upon, reasons.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:(I would have preferred O'Conner to stay, naturally, but I would also prefer for her not to have so much going on in her life right now. )
Why, what's going on with her life? Isn't she like 75?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Her husband is dying, I believe.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Slightly tangential, but what exactly would be involved in "working to overturn Roe v Wade" anyway? Can the current Supremes decide to just bring up an old case or would they have to wait until a specific abortion-related case was brought to court?
Just wondering.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Informative Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee: none whatsoever, as no position was being advocated beyond that an abortion may not be made unlawful by that part of the constitution for obvious and easily understood, if not always agreed upon, reasons.
The same exact qualification ("without due process") is added to "deprived of liberty." And this is the clause that is used by Roe v. Wade to justify the unconstitutionality of abortion prohibition.
If "without due process" prevents the no deprivation of life clause from being used to make abortion unconstitutional, it should also be used to prevent the no deprivation of liberty clause from being used to make abortion prohibition unconstitutional.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:C. Boyden Gray, a White House counsel in the first Bush Administration, when the Supreme Court shut Roberts out 9 to 0 in a commercial case, recalls the clients ranting, “How could we lose 9-0?” Roberts’s self-flagellating response: “Because there were only nine Justices.”
Made me chuckle, thought I'd share.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't mind reading that AC article, it is easy to see why she is such a rabid dog.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Scott:
What are anyone's thoughts on the recently reported link between Roberts and his gay rights clients? Think anything will come of it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nah. he was helping a colleague prepare for an SCOTUS appearance. Anyone who reads more into it either way is ignoring the benefit a member of a law firm gains by any member of that firm doing well in front of SCOTUS.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)