Is it just me or does this guy have the whitest name ever? LINK John Roberts Chosen by Bush for U.S. Supreme Court (Update2) July 19 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush selected John G. Roberts Jr., a Washington federal appeals court judge with a limited public record on social issues, to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, administration officials said. Roberts, 50, would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's current swing vote on abortion and affirmative action. If confirmed by the Senate, he would be the first new justice since 1994. In choosing Roberts, Bush opted for a nominee who may draw less opposition than more outspoken candidates would have. Roberts was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote for his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003. ``This is a very cautious appointment,'' said Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who helped lead the fight to defeat the 1987 Supreme nomination of conservative Robert Bork. Roberts is one of the country's most experienced Supreme Court practitioners. He argued 39 times at the high court on behalf of the U.S. government and private clients. He is a former law clerk to then-Justice William H. Rehnquist and former deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush. One issue certain to be scrutinized is a brief he signed, while in the solicitor general's office, that included a footnote calling for the high court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that granted women a right to abortion. Business Lawyer As a private litigator, Roberts often served corporate clients, among them Toyota Motor Corp. and the American Gaming Association. Roberts also argued at a lower court for a group of states suing Microsoft Corp. for antitrust violations. On the appeals court, Roberts has signaled he favors at least some limits on the power of Congress to regulate commerce. He voted to reconsider a three-judge panel's ruling that applied the Endangered Species Act to protect a type of California toad. Roberts said the panel ruling ``seems inconsistent'' with Supreme Court precedent. At the same time, he suggested he would be open to other arguments in favor of the law. Roberts last week joined a 3-0 opinion upholding the use of military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Legal Policies Liberal groups said they are concerned about Roberts's work in the Justice Department as deputy to Solicitor General Ken Starr. He ``helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans,'' said Nan Aron, head of the Alliance for Justice in Washington. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid in a statement opted not to criticize Roberts' record. ``The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry,'' he said. ``The Senate must review Judge Roberts's record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness.'' Roberts graduated from Harvard University with highest honors and Harvard Law School, where he served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review, with high honors. The Court's Direction Roberts may chart the Supreme Court's direction on church- state separation, congressional power, campaign-finance laws, abortion and racial preferences. On each of those issues, O'Connor's votes often determined the outcome. The challenge for the White House will be to win confirmation in the Senate, where Democrats may use a parliamentary tactic called a filibuster, or unlimited debate, to try to block a vote. Republicans control the Senate with 55 of the 100 senators, five short of the number needed to shut off a filibuster. The outcome may be determined by a group of 14 senators, seven from each party, whose May 23 agreement averted a parliamentary showdown over a group of Bush's lower court nominees. Abortion may prove to be the pivotal issue in the confirmation fight, much as it was in 1987 when the Senate defeated the nomination of Bork. Of the eight remaining justices, five have voted to reaffirm abortion rights, although one member of that group, Justice Anthony Kennedy, would allow restrictions. In 2000, Kennedy voted to allow a Nebraska ban on a procedure opponents called ``partial birth abortion.''
I gotta admit this pick took me totally by surprise. I've been really busy and haven't been following the news that closely but from what I recall I don't think many were thinking this guy would be a top choice. Its no surprise he's conservative but from what I understand that many of his views are closely guarded and according to some analysis I've heard some of the legal policies he's worked may not represent his own views but just show he's a good team player. His range of supporters and unanimous confirmation to Appeals sound impressive and it seems likely to me that he was primarily picked because the Admin figured he would have the easiest confirmation.
I must disagree. The easiest person to confirm would be a latino woman. I even think Bush's Attorney General would have an easier time because he's latino. That being said, I believe Bush made a smart choice. Republicans like him because he's conservative. Democrats won't like it, but they will probably give in unless something comes up in the guy's past. Also, I don't recall him having an unanimous confirmation. I thought the vote was 16-3.
In a tribute to my hastily started thread (now locked by the evil mods ), I just want to stress that the information on John G. Roberts Jr. is being constantly updated on Wikipedia - which has essentially quailed any of my attempts to repost the stuff. For those of us who are really interested in this nominee, we shall definitely check it out from time to time, and forget about other focus groups' oft one-sided reports/opinions.
Interesting. He could be an ideal conservative pick in that he's so young and will serve for decades and there's not enough ammo to hit him with. Personally, I hope he turns into another Souter.
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2005/07/yo-quiero-jesusland.html Dear Freedom Lovers, For the next ten days, please make sure every conversation you have with the press or with Republicans features the following three elements: Step 1: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we will give President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as an associate justice to the Supreme Court the time, attention and careful deliberation it deserves in five weeks, when the Senate reconvenes. In the mean time...” Step 2: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we urge President Bush to repudiate the reckless, irresponsible and treasonous behavior of Karl Rove, and demand that Mr. Rove accept Personal Responsibility for his actions publicly apologize to the individuals he harmed, the security agencies he compromised and the America people, who’s trust he betrayed. We further urge President Bush to keep his word to the American people and fire Mr. Rove, as he promised he would do to ‘anyone involved’ in the Plame Scandal. And...” Step 3: “Because we believe so strongly in the Rule of Law, we urge President Bush to keep his word to the American people, demand that anyone else involve in the reckless, irresponsible and treasonous behavior that let to the Plame Scandal come forward, apologize, and accept Personal Responsibility for their actions.” Transmission from global Liberal HQ ends.
O'Connor thinks he's cute... http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/20/scotus.oconnor.ap/index.html -- O'Connor calls nominee 'first rate' Justice disappointed 'in a sense' to see number of women drop SPOKANE, Washington (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Wednesday that the man President Bush nominated to replace her is "first rate," but she's disappointed in a sense that the nominee isn't a woman. O'Connor didn't learn of the nomination of federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts until she heard about it on the radio while returning from a fishing trip, her fishing companion said. "I have watched Judge Roberts since he has been an advocate before our court, and I and my colleagues have been enormously impressed with his scholarship and his skills," O'Connor said in an interview Wednesday during the annual conference of the 9th U.S. Circuit in Spokane. "He's earned an excellent reputation as a lawyer, so I think he's very well qualified." "I am disappointed, in a sense, to see the percentage of women on our court drop by 50 percent, but I can't be disappointed in the quality of person nominated. He's first rate," she added. She announced her retirement July 1. When the president announced his choice Tuesday, O'Connor had gone fishing in the Idaho Panhandle with U.S. District Judge Robert H. Whaley of Spokane. Bush tried to give her advance notice on Roberts, but they were out of cellular telephone range on the St. Joe River, Whaley told The Seattle Times. He said O'Connor learned of the nomination over the car radio when they returned to Spokane shortly before 6 p.m. PDT. As for the fishing, Whaley said, O'Connor was skunked. The 9th Circuit conference is a gathering of lawyers and federal judges from nine Western states. O'Connor is scheduled to address the group Thursday.
Definite Supreme Court material... _________ Roberts Upheld D.C. French-Fry Arrest Judge John G. Roberts' views on abortion may be murky, but there's no question where he stands on the issue of girls eating fries in a subway station. As a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts wrote a decision last year upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl who violated the ban on eating food on Washington's subway system, Metro. But Roberts said that while the arrest was legal, he felt transit officers overreacted by handcuffing and jailing the girl. link
Here is a link to the unanimous opinion: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf You must be eager to read it to decide for yourself the qualifications of Judge Roberts. Which part of it do you disagree with? I am sure it is this part: No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A twelve-year-old girl was arrested, searched, and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained until released to her mother some three hours later -- all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station. The child was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish," and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm. Also, as pointed out above by Judge Roberts, this case was an appeal of a lower US District Court decision. That decision was rendered by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. As you will discern from his resume, he is another whitebread tool of the Republican right. On June 16, 1994, Judge Sullivan was appointed by President William Clinton to serve as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. Upon his investiture as a United States District Judge, Judge Sullivan became the first person in the District of Columbia to have been appointed by three United States Presidents to three judicial positions. He continues to serve as a United States District Judge. Judge Sullivan is the recipient of many honors, including the Thurgood Marshall Award of Excellence and the Howard University Distinguished Alumni Award (2003) awarded by the Howard University Alumni Association. He has also been recognized for his achievements by the District of Columbia Public School System, the Judicial Administration Division of the American Bar Association, and The District of Columbia Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Commission.
I didn't watch TV last night, but did anybody catch these? I guess this is why you will never see any more reference to "The Roberts adopted these children from Haiti".
Put up someone from the far right to the supreme court... Great way to deflect the media attention from Karl Rove... Is the American public so open to political manipulation??? I guess after letting Bush get another 4 years the answer is, most unfortunately, "Yes"...
There is little doubt that Roberts leans to the conservative side. However, unlike some Bush appointees(Janice Rogers Brown) he doesn't seem to have a history of activism, and making new law and changing things from the bench. I think that is where the line should be drawn. I haven't seen anything from him that indicates he would do that. Unless something comes to light during questioning I am in favor of his approval.
I caught an interview of John McCain on On the Record. Gretta asked something about how Bush and the White House did a good job of keeping it secret. McCain makes a joke about how he wished the White House could keep other things secret (lol). But anyways, the commercial break comes up and there's already this commercial from some group saying "tell congress to not block Roberts" and to just forget the entire point of the process and put him on the court basically was the gist of it. Anyways, something like that could not have just been made, this group, I forget which one, obviously knew he was getting nominated. The machine rolls on I suppose.
I heard the clip yesterday on "All Things Considered"...the group had the spot ready to go on the same day--I assume that they made a template and then scrambled to insert a name once it was announced. Slick operation though...The Democrats won the fight over fillibustering(as far as they are concerned)with raising over 5 million in a short time, were able to swing polls over 20 points--nothing to scoff at. I think they are poised for battle, but I'm not sure where Roberts fits yet--maybe we'll luck out and he will be as reasonable as Sandra. He is certainly as business friendly From all accounts, he is well liked and connected by folks on the left and right. However, if Roe comes back up or a case that is similar, I shudder to think what might happen to this country should it be reversed...guess I am a "one-issue" "liberal" as wnes says...
stewart was awesome last night in his cracks against the democrats. and yeah im assuming they made the template adds just needed to insert the names and or pictures...
Nothing really there to disagree with ~ I just found the article amusing; any politician/judge will have something like this in their background. That this decision was one of the first 'major' negatives against this guy is significant for its lack of importance.
