Up to date info on Supreme Court nominee (NSR)

[Monique]

Here are a couple of links for those watching this situation very closely--the fastest sources of good information, plus ways to speak up.

People for the American Way: see their report on Roberts and also "Courting Disaster"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/

Alliance for Justice: one of the best organizations out there working on judicial selection issues.
http://www.allianceforjustice.org/judicial/index.html

[13]

Bump & thanks for the links.

This Roberts dude is just a tad scary based on what I read at the first link.

[Core Shot]

This guy is in like Flynn.
Get ready for Roberts Rules of Order.

[mojorisin]

...a tad scary...

that's a severe understatement there 13

[mr_gyptian]

Apparently Judge Roberts isn't from the Footloose school of Conservatism.




something tells me he will see this at his wedding reception.

[Plakespear]

Apparently Judge Roberts isn't from the Footloose school of Conservatism.

[IMG]captwhcd11807200147scotus_bush_whcd118_1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]johnrobertsdancer.gif[/IMG]


something tells me he will see this at his wedding reception.

Seems the King of Cut & Paste cant post pics!

[mr_gyptian]

Seems the King of Cut & Paste cant post pics!

Basom must have revoked my powers when I didn't pay up. plus I'm too lazy for the loser galleries.

[Monique]

This guy is in like Flynn.
Get ready for Roberts Rules of Order.

And the really scary part is it's only gonna get worse when Rehnquist kicks off or retires. I was part of a fascinating briefing session Monday afternoon and a big strategic concern was Democrats rolling over and deciding they'd better "give" Bush this one and save the intense battle for when Rehnquist leaves the court. Also at an environmetnal briefing today the presenters were talking about the record of Roberts ruling against the Endangered Species Act. Wait, no, the REALLY scary part is we're stuck with this court for the next 30-50 years.

[splat]

Ahhh, c'mon.

It's not as if Bush were Julius Caesar feeding the Christians to the lions.
But with their tunnel vision voting record, they're lion fodder in a bigger picture.

[mr_gyptian]

Ahhh, c'mon.

It's not as if Bush were Julius Caesar feeding the Christians to the lions.
But with their tunnel vision voting record, they're lion fodder in a bigger picture.

turn on the AC in the double wide. WTF are you talking about?

this guy was one of the most respected appellate lawyers when that was his job and is now one of the most respected jurists. he is conservative, though according to Ann Coulter not conservative enough. but this president is conservative, so not surprisingly he nominates a conservative to the SC.

it's not like he's a liberal president and something as extreme as nominating former ACLU counsel. oh wait, that did happen and Republicans didn't vote for her based upon her support of Roe V. Wade. the senate vote was 96-3.

christ, Bush is so dumb you're obviously guaranteed another Souter.

[Core Shot]

it's not like he's a liberal president and something as extreme as nominating former ACLU counsel. oh wait, that did happen and Republicans didn't vote for her based upon her support of Roe V. Wade. the senate vote was 96-3.

Well said, mr. mummified maggot.

[Steven S. Dallas]

The ACLU represents clients and causes that are attractive to extreme conservatives as well as those that are championed mainly by the left, and is much an opponent of government regulation of personal choice as any right wing group. Aren't conservatives supposed to be for smaller government? Oh, right, only when it suits them. Deregulate the energy industry but keep boobies off TV, nice to see some ideological consistency.

Roberts is going to get a lot more questioning on his Roe stance than any of the most recent nominees, because he doesn't have nearly the record that they did. It's legit. That being said, could be worse. He doesn't seem like a knee-jerk guy, even if some of his decisions seem to betray a willingness to toe the party line.

[shmerham]

The ACLU represents clients and causes that are attractive to extreme conservatives as well as those that are championed mainly by the left, and is much an opponent of government regulation of personal choice as any right wing group. Aren't conservatives supposed to be for smaller government? Oh, right, only when it suits them. Deregulate the energy industry but keep boobies off TV, nice to see some ideological consistency.

Roberts is going to get a lot more questioning on his Roe stance than any of the most recent nominees, because he doesn't have nearly the record that they did. It's legit. That being said, could be worse. He doesn't seem like a knee-jerk guy, even if some of his decisions seem to betray a willingness to toe the party line.

In all fairness to right-wingers and conservatives, the two aren't the same: right wing refers to economic policy (ie, deregulation, no welfare, etc); conservative refers to social regulation (ie, no boobies on tv, no drugs, etc). The "typical" republican is right-wing and conservative, but you can be one or the other. Someone can be right-wing and liberal (that's called libertarian), very few people are left-wing and conservative though (anyone know anyone that is?)

[Steven S. Dallas]

It's still government regulation. Just because you may be morally opposed to boobies on TV, you can still say yeah, you know, I don't like it but it's really not the government's place to do stuff about that and still not be a libertarian. You can reconcile conservativism (as you define it) and right-wingyness (as you define it), but I think that choosing a justice based on personal views and not ideological consistency is a disservice to the Court.

[shmerham]

No, I agree with you. I was mostly taking issue with this:

Aren't conservatives supposed to be for smaller government? Oh, right, only when it suits them. Deregulate the energy industry but keep boobies off TV, nice to see some ideological consistency.

I should've rephrased that to say "in all fairness to right-wingers"; since not all are conservative.

I think it's a bit idealistic to think that you can split everyone up into big-government or small-government. How many people want the government involved when it comes to money (welfare, regulation, etc) but not when it comes to behavior (tv, drugs, etc)?

I definitely agree that personal views shouldn't matter. I think the most important question to ask is "Is this person maintaining the integrity of the constitution?" Obviously someone extremely left-wing or extremely conservative is going to fail this test.

[Steven S. Dallas]

I think it's a bit idealistic to think that you can split everyone up into big-government or small-government.

Oh, admittedly. Pie in the sky and all that. But hey, if there's one place where we can be idealistic and have some hope of success it is in government because we get to vote the fuckers out every few years.

[shmerham]

Senate "Gang of 14" meets to discuss Roberts nomination

By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer | July 21, 2005

WASHINGTON --A moderate Democratic senator who helped broker a deal over President Bush's judicial nominations said Thursday that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts doesn't seem to be the kind of right-wing candidate they feared the president would select.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, one of 14 senators who helped avoid a confrontation over judges earlier this year, said their message to Bush essentially was, "Don't send us an extremist that's going to blow the place up, and first look is that that's exactly what he has not done."
"In other words, he's sent us somebody that's got impressive academic and legal credentials and seems to have a record of personal honor," Lieberman said on the Don Imus radio show, suggesting a smooth confirmation for the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge.
Lieberman, D-Conn., said he thinks Roberts, who became a judge in 2003, is a "decent guy." But he said it was too early to reach further conclusions.
"He's only been on the bench for two years so we don't know a lot about his judicial philosophy and that's where the Judiciary Committee hearings are going to be important," Lieberman said.
Lieberman and others in the "Gang of 14" senators who recently avoided a partisan confrontation over Bush's judicial selections met Thursday to discuss Roberts and whether his nomination might trigger a clause in the agreement allowing Democrats to mount a filibuster.
Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine are among the members of the "Gang of 14."
Entering the meeting, several Democrats in the group said it appeared Roberts will have a smooth confirmation.
"I think the president has made a wise choice," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. Asked whether a filibuster was likely, he said: "I think it's fair to say I don't see anything coming out right now."
Added Mark Pryor, D-Ark: "My sense is, so far, so good."
Roberts also was headed to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Judiciary Committee members Thursday, as he continues to reintroduce himself to a Senate that unanimously voted for him in 2003.
Majority Republican senators have been unfailingly admiring of Roberts, 50, since Bush announced the nomination Tuesday night. And even though Democrats are uncertain about his judicial philosophy, not a single Democratic senator so far has called for the conservative jurist's outright rejection. There also has been no public talk of trying to block a yes or no vote
Other Democrats, however, said they weren't about to rubber stamp Bush's choice of a successor to retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
"No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court," Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday.
Abortion and access to internal government memos loomed as likely flash points as Democrats pointed toward the nationally televised proceedings, likely to begin after Labor Day.
Yet chances of a Democratic filibuster were fading.
"Do I believe this is a filibuster-able nominee? The answer would be no, not at this time," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a Judiciary Committee member and abortion-rights supporter.
Many of the Republicans members of the "Gang of 14" have indicated support for Roberts. "I think that Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope that the other members of that group agree with me," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said.
Roberts, who didn't say much publicly Wednesday during a five-hour visit to the Capitol, made sure to praise the politicians who will decide the first Supreme Court nomination in 11 years.
"I appreciate and respect the constitutional role of the Senate in the confirmation process," Roberts said after meeting with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
While Democratic senators said such things as Roberts was "in the ballpark" of being a nonconfrontational selection, they refused to guarantee a smooth confirmation process.
"The nominee should be as clear and open as he possibly can in answering our questions," Leahy said.
Republicans showed no doubt about the outcome. "We intend to have a respectful process here and confirm you before the first Monday in October," when the court reconvenes, McConnell told Roberts.
The administration was taking no chances, placing former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., at Roberts' elbow to smooth the way to confirmation.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was at the fulcrum of early speculation as Bush's likely choice, said Thursday he understands Democrats will interrogate Roberts closely on his legal views, but said they shouldn't go too far.
Gonzales, appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," said questions about how someone will approach a case are appropriate. "But to inquire as to how someone is actually going to decide a case, I think, is inappropriate for a nominee to answer," he added.
As Roberts paid courtesy calls on senators Wednesday, a conservative group bought TV ad time in support of his nomination. Abortion rights groups, meanwhile, staged protests against the nominee at the Supreme Court and the Capitol.
Progress for America, a conservative organization with ties to the administration, unveiled the opening salvo in an ad campaign designed to ensure confirmation. It stressed Roberts' resume of academic and professional accomplishments and public service -- first in his class at Harvard Law School, confirmed by the Senate to his current position and lawyer in two presidential administrations.
Like Leahy, several Democratic senators said they intended to question Roberts closely about whether he would separate his personal views from his judicial rulings.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada hinted at another potential area of conflict when he publicly prodded Roberts to provide written materials requested by senators.
Democrats have blocked confirmation votes on two of Bush's high-profile nominees in recent years in disputes over access to documents.

[shamrockpow]

I think it's a bit idealistic to think that you can split everyone up into big-government or small-government. How many people want the government involved when it comes to money (welfare, regulation, etc) but not when it comes to behavior (tv, drugs, etc)?

ALL POLITICIANS FAVOR BIG GOVERNMENT.

Dems like to spend big bucks on healthcare, wealth redistribtution, regulatory bodies, and education.

Republicans prefer to spend big bucks on the military, farmers, and their own social programs (see medicare drug benefit and NCLB).

Yes Bush has cut taxes, but if we ever want to pay for all those entitlement programs (aka unfunded liabilities) then somebody will raise taxes in the future (or at a minimum allow bracket creep to do the job).

[Tippster]

Actually "Right Wing" or "Left Wing" comes from which side of the center aisle or open space they sit in Parliament (UK) and The House/Senate chambers here in the US. Human nature subtly dictated that the more opposed to the views held by the other side you were, the farther away from center you'd sit. The "Centrists" were those that congregated and interacted with each other in the middle.

Liberal and Conservative, on the other hand, have nothing to do with Party affiliation. You can be a liberal Republican like John Warner(R-VA) or a conservative Democrat ... although none of those come to mind...

[13]

When I said Roberts is a tad scary, it's because of what I perceive to be a lack of ideological consistency.

He seems all over the place.

I dunno, maybe he has grown more consistent as he's aged. Note that some of the decisions & briefs in Monique's link are pretty dated.

[mr_gyptian]

When I said Roberts is a tad scary, it's because of what I perceive to be a lack of ideological consistency.

He seems all over the place.

I dunno, maybe he has grown more consistent as he's aged. Note that some of the decisions & briefs in Monique's link are pretty dated.

lack of ideological consistency would be a good characteristic in someone who is supposed to be impartial, no?

[Steven S. Dallas]

Yeah. If you've got some time to kill, check out the opinion he joined in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. This can be read as extending the President's ability to try prisoners of war before military tribunals, not just courts martial, where there is weaker protection of civil liberties. For instance, the defendant has no right to be present at his own trial; and there is limited 5th amendment protection. This opinion, as it stands, could apply to U.S. citizens accused of terrorism as well as foreign POWs. Scary shit, yo.

[lemon boy]

i mentioned a while ago somewhere else that the shurb wouldn't appoint a true ideological conservative b/c that person would likely be at odds with the "homeland security" measures.

[mr_gyptian]

Yeah. If you've got some time to kill, check out the opinion he joined in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. This can be read as extending the President's ability to try prisoners of war before military tribunals, not just courts martial, where there is weaker protection of civil liberties. For instance, the defendant has no right to be present at his own trial; and there is limited 5th amendment protection. This opinion, as it stands, could apply to U.S. citizens accused of terrorism as well as foreign POWs. Scary shit, yo.

why would a prisoner of war, i.e. a citizen of another country, have access to an amendment that guarantees the rights of our citizenry?