Geez... that's a reach! Bush's legacy is being one of the worst Presidents in US history. If he somehow slipped a Souter onto the Court, that would be a positive. I just don't see it. And his father followed Souter with Clarence "freakin' unqualified" Thomas. I think we will see two very conservative Bush appointees to the Supreme Court. That's my opinion, anyway. We'll see. Keep D&D Civil!!
Wow, a "conservative" singling out "liberals" for "judging" a nominee on only "one" subject...thats "rich"
Honestly, I started off just poking fun at the "quotations" and the sentence sort of gained a life of it's own... That said, I do call you out for charging liberals as one issue voters as if conservatives aren't, you just described the solid south and the base of current conservative power. The radical Christian right will not be appeased by any appointment that doesn't fit their agenda: someone who would oppose abortion or make it a states rights issue. Furthermore, they helped to elect Bush and the conservative junta and are calling in their chips--that can mean deflating support for the GOP in 06/08 once the appointment meets with their disapproval....pick your poison.
As insane man rightfully pointed out, the democrats (I am using the term synomously, and admittingly, loosely, with "liberals") have been bogged down by a couple of wedge issues such as abortion. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the article in post #68. They play right into the hands of right-wing conservatives. Any time the aspect of Supreme Court nominee is in topic, the first, must-have question raised by "liberals" is abortion! Come on, don't dems/libs have something else more important to ask for?!!
wnes Although you're right about abortion shouldn't be the litmus test to any nominee to "liberals" you can bet you're ass it is to Jr's base. There's also another name coming up that I don't know and Clement might just be a diversion. Does anyone know anything about Edith Jones? [edit] Source: Clement Not Bush's Choice for High Court Source Tells ABC News Much-Discussed Potential Candidate Isn't the White House's Choice for Supreme Court Jul. 19, 2005 - Judge Edith Clement -- perceived by many observers as a potential frontrunner for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- is not President Bush's choice for the high court. An informed source told ABC News they had spoken with Clement and said she received a phone call from the White House this afternoon. According to the source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=953790
methinks Rove floated Clement's name just to see how the right wingnuts would react. Probably didn't go so well.
i think without a doubt conservatives and liberals can agree that homeland security and its relatives balance with civil liberties is the most important benchmark anyone should have right now. affirmative action? government transparency? freedom of freaking press?!?!? and for the democrats to bend over and take it as long as its not someone vocally opposed to abortion is disgusting. thats my main objection to the right winged bible belt folk who were courted by rove. that they vote for bush because of gay rights/abortion. there are bigger more pressing issues in this world than gay folks getting married. personally im staunchly anti abortion. but that doesn't preclude me from voting democrat because i think one issue voters lack brains. and similarly i think democrats adopting a one issue and a trivial one at that benchmark is problematic. the republicans have pro choice folks in their party. they just dont run at the top of the ticket. but aside from pres/vp they have no problems with pro-choice folks. why can't democrats open up and stop being myopic?
From what I have read so far, this Roberts guy doesn't look good to liberal/progressive causes. I wouldn't want him to be the judge on many of my lawsuits.
Since this is the only thing that is really going to matter... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719...qp34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion. "The 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," the brief said. In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
If this is true, this will be a fun battle. IIRC, John Roberts had a ridiculously difficult time reaching the Appeals Court. I believe it took 3 tries to get him there. In my opinion, Bush messed up here. I was really hoping he would have nominated a conservative moderate like O'Connor. But once again, with Bush, it's the idea of pushing his agenda that is first and foremost. In his defense, I don't necessarily blame him. If this was 10 years ago, I would have been elated at this nomination. But nowadays, it seems as if the mentality is "my way or the highway." We need a justice that will weigh each case for what it is and will not push his/her personal opinions. I want neither a Ted Kennedy radical or a Rick Santorum reactionary. One other thing to keep in mind is that justices change, often radically. Earl Warren did a 180 after being made Chief Justice. The Earl Warren that was Governor of CA was diametrically opposite from the Earl Warren that was Chief Justice. I do not like this pick at all.
John G. Roberts - Former Deputy Solicitor for Kenneth Starr. - Associate White House counsel for four years under the Reagan Administration. - Overturning Roe was such a primary focus of the Reagan Administration's Justice Department that during an oral argument by the nominee to the Supreme Court a Justice asked, "Mr. Roberts, in this case, are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?" His reply was, "No your honor, the issue doesn't even come up." To this the justice replied, "Well that hasn't prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases."* - As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The 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."** - As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. - Lead counsel for Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Ky, Inc. v. Williams. The case involved a woman who was fired after asking Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court ruled that while this condition impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform major life activities. Disability rights groups fear that this decision may erode the Americans with Disabilities Act. - Filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta in Oct. 2001, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX as applied to the NCAA in NCAA v. Smith. Sources: * NARAL ** Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991 last updated 2/15/02 ========================================================= You be the judge!
I'll reserve judgment on this guy until I know more. I would just like to point out that the briefs you write and arguments you make as an attorney, whether in private practice or working in the Solicitor General's office, do not always reflect your personal beliefs. The opinions he joins, and more particularly the one's he authored, are more informative indications of his personal beliefs and judicial philosophy. But don't let that stop you from jumping to a conclusion.
I agree totally. I am not a fan of this choice on the basis of his PERSONAL beliefs and that alone. As I mentioned in my post, justices change radically once they reach the bench. Hell, O'Connor changed a lot from her days in Arizona. When Dutch Reagan put her on the Court, he was expecting a justice that was a lot more to the right than what O'Connor turned out to be.
