John Roberts is to be nominated to Supreme Court. Just heard this on the news. Suppose to be announced live on TV news networks at 9pm EDT (less than an hour away). What do we know about this guy? It’s been suggested that this could be a heated debate in the senate. Probably will see all stops pulled out. Cutting remarks of all kinds.
It seems like Bush decided that he can’t have archaic and Edith too.
Caj
rimshot
Rip City!
Narf!
PS Can someone remind me how many justices need to be on the bench so that this is a vacancy that needs to be filled?
“No” (in German)
As I write this, Mr. Bush is making his speech. 8:00 P.M. Central. Seems like a sound choice. It will all boil down to political sides, of course, because the Supreme Court determines the law to such an extent, nowadays. Both sides agree in one thing: they both resent the Court. The Left resents the Court for ruling in favor of Mr. Bush in the matter of Mr. Gore’s recounts. The Right resents the Court for Roe vs. Wade, among other things.
God help him. He’s going to need it.
“No, no, no!”
So three of them left.
Oops wrong thread (stupid salesman jokes).
Well, we could start a bet on which statement comes first:
He’s out of step with America.
He doesn’t represent America.
He’s on the wrong side of the choice issue.
He’s bad for America.
Hope I’m wrong.
The commentary I’m hearing is that the man is extremely well liked, extremely well respected and very “confirmable.” He was confirmed unanimously when he was appointed to the appelate court. “Everybody likes him.” “He has no enemies.” “He’s a very warm, humble, and likeable person.” “He’s the cream of the cream of the legal profession.”
I believe it was a statesmanly choice, and I hope the reaction across the political spectrum will, for the most part, be statesmanly.
Best wishes,
Jerry
Pretty much down-the-line conservative, highly regarded, terrific guy, excellent legal mind. My internet search so far isn’t finding anything on the death penalty for him,
I haven’t found that either, but I also haven’t begun wading through the opinions for the D.C. Court of Appeals since he took the bench.
What I’ve read so far:
Clerked for Rehnquist 1980-81
He’s been a judge for 2 years - his nomination took 2 years for confirmation due to being held up by Democrats in the Senate
Former special assistant to Attorney General, later Associate Counsel in Reagan administration.
Arguing a case for the first Bush administration in 1990, Roberts said Roe v. Wade “was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
In his 2003 confirmation hearing, however, he told senators he was acting as an advocate for his client, rather than presenting his own positions (re: Roe v. Wade).
Is reported (according to his opinions/dissents/appellate cases as an attorney) to be for prayer in school, thinks flag burning should be a crime, is against affirmative action, and that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional when applied to real estate developers.
My first reaction is: long, hot summer 
I may change my mind after digging through the court opinions, but it doesn’t look good.
AAARRGGHH!! 
I’m waitingggg!
Yes, that one threw me too. I have to track that case down and read it for clarification.
The problem is he’s been an attorney for 22 years and on the bench for only 2. There isn’t going to be a substantial record of opinions/dissents by which to judge him. The cases he argued as an attorney can always be seen as representing the client’s interests and not his own personal beliefs. I’d imagine he’s going to get a grilling for details and particulars.
Poor Weeks. Here’s to you holding your breath and turning blue. 
Since when have property developers been an endangered species? 
Seriously, there was a really hilarious development here this week that relates to this. Quite a lot of people bought land on the outskirts of Sydney that was zoned for farming or preservation on the assumption that, with the expansion of the city, it would be rezoned residential and that they could clean up by subdividing. This week, new zoning decisions were announced. Some areas where changed; some remained unchanged. Those whose areas were unchanged were irate. They even held a public meeting to protest and asked the government for compensation. No area previously zoned residential was changed.
Now this completely banjaxed me. This is property speculation. You buy in the hope of making a profit. If you are unlucky, you lose. That’s exactly what speculation is. Failed businesses can’t go to the government asking to be compensated for their bad luck or judgment. People were saying things like this—this is my superannuation they are taking away, and, I just want to be paid what my property is worth. Obviously, they hadn’t been told by the speculators who sold to them that they were gambling. Well, why should they have been told. Seems pretty obvious to me.
(wait no longer Weeks)
SAVE OUR COURTS
Judge John Roberts an Unsuitable Choice for Supreme Court Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 19, 2005
Ted Miller
202.973.3032
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nominations/details.cfm?id=33666
Washington, DC - NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation’s leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman’s right to choose, has announced that it will oppose Judge John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, is a divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts, rather than a unifier Americans could trust to preserve our personal freedoms like the right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose.
“Americans deserve a nominee who respects this country’s culture of freedom and personal responsibility, and who understands the profound effect his decisions have on our everyday lives,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade. President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we, and the 65% of Americans who support Roe, are ready for the battle ahead.”
Some of the lowlights of Judge Robert’s background include:
- As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that “[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.”
In Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.
Roberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, filed a “friend of the court” brief for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the protesters’ behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion.
The Court was so accustomed to the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Roberts’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice Asked, “Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?” He responded, “No, your honor, the issue doesn’t even come up.” To this the justice said, “Well, that hasn’t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.”
But he hasn’t even been accused of a crime!!!
But I thought someone said he was conservative? 