Judge Nomination

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » July 19, 2005, 8:51 pm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 439D52.DTL

President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, a senior administration official said.

Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.

Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.

Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

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.

Safe party pick, I think that's a pity, but I also expected it

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » July 19, 2005, 9:06 pm

Yeah, but God told Bush this was the right choice.

Too many people think the President has more power then he does in day to day things. Congress is there to balance him, but this is what I was worried about with Bush. One judge has resigned and another will be soon. This means Bush and his policies could affect America for years. I hope they can find a reasonable selection who does not think that religion should guide our countries policies and laws, but I think that is asking too much from this congressional group and presidential administration.

If this goes through and Bush gets another judge in, then we will be full of religious issue lawsuits for years to come.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 19, 2005, 9:52 pm

This is pretty much what was expected. If he had anything less than a far right looney, the GOP congressional members would get hammered in the next election cycle by the crispies, which they pretty much said they would do, verbatim. Consider that Mr "I approve electricity on your testicals/the geneva convenion is quaint" Gonzolas was considered too moderate by these people, and you get a pretty good idea of what to expect from this guy.

I am more concerned about the rather blatant nepotism of putting this obviously hand groomed neocon lacky into federal court and then directly into the supreme court in the short span of two years. I think that someone should be a federal judge for at least five years (or Attorney General) if not ten before being eligable for the SCOTUS.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 19, 2005, 10:13 pm

If the democrats were in this position to nominate, they'd appoint a leftist.

Nominations are the spoils of won elections.

The guy is well qualified. I'm sure the democrats will soon begin a campaign of lies in an effort to destroy this guy.

But you know what. I hope they lie with zeal and with angry passion. The voters will witness the spaz fest and vote even more conservatives into office next round.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 19, 2005, 10:55 pm

BTW I'm not real big on overturning abortion law via the courts. That fight should be handled on the the personal level.

I don't look for that in a SC judge.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 19, 2005, 11:02 pm

A guy with 2 years of federal judge experience is not qualified for the SCOTUS, left or right. And to be fair, Bush Sr and Clinton both appointed centrists to the supreme court during their terms, so this is not a Republican or Dem issue. Its a Neocon crispy takeover issue.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 19, 2005, 11:05 pm

Jice Virago wrote:A guy with 2 years of federal judge experience is not qualified for the SCOTUS, left or right. And to be fair, Bush Sr and Clinton both appointed centrists to the supreme court during their terms, so this is not a Republican or Dem issue. Its a Neocon crispy takeover issue.

what do you think dumbass mcjesus is trying to argue it? if adex supports something, it's because it furthers his christiano-fascist dogma. just like every other bible thumping hypocrite.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 19, 2005, 11:11 pm

You exaggerate and assume things about me to a point where they are no longer accurate Kyo.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 19, 2005, 11:15 pm

Do you think the democrats will go soft on this guy so that they'll be in a better position to influence the next nomination?

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » July 19, 2005, 11:57 pm

Yeah, because the last time the Republicans nominated someone, the Dems really had to dig hard to find dirt on him. I wonder if Clarence still harasses interns while he makes court decisions.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 20, 2005, 12:38 am

Jice Virago wrote:A guy with 2 years of federal judge experience is not qualified for the SCOTUS, left or right. And to be fair, Bush Sr and Clinton both appointed centrists to the supreme court during their terms, so this is not a Republican or Dem issue. Its a Neocon crispy takeover issue.

To be fair, Bush Sr's pick was supposed to be conservative..

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 20, 2005, 2:02 am

Jice Virago wrote:A guy with 2 years of federal judge experience is not qualified for the SCOTUS, left or right. And to be fair, Bush Sr and Clinton both appointed centrists to the supreme court during their terms, so this is not a Republican or Dem issue. Its a Neocon crispy takeover issue.

Clinton appointed centists? Breyer and Ginsburg have both consistently voted for abortion and affirmative action. To you this makes them centrists, or atleast it doesn't definitively, by itself make them right or left wing (if it did you obviously wouldn't have called them centrists). What if a supreme court judge consistently voted against abortion and affirmative action? To you that would make them right wing, based on those facts alone. Do you see at all the problem here with your thinking?

Breyer and Ginsburg are both liberal judges, it was Clinton's choice and he made it. Bush campaigned in 04 and won reelection saying he'd appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court, which he's doing. Roberts isn't some whacko; he's a mainstream, intelligent conservative.

I find it funny that you're saying he's not "qualified," when the one thing it seems like everyone's been able to agree on so far is that he's more than qualified and competent.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 20, 2005, 2:07 am

Brotha wrote:Clinton appointed centists? Breyer and Ginsburg have both consistently voted for abortion and affirmative action.

So exactly what is it about centrists that you're not getting then?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 20, 2005, 10:28 am

i think it is a commonly held misconception in conservative circles that it is a minority of the population that is in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade intact - when in fact it is closer to two thirds of the general population.

but that's one of the many ways in which conservatives have "framed the debate" over the last decade plus that is frankly brilliant. It is very common for the propagandists on the right to frame moderate positions as 'extremely left' thereby making their 'extremely right' position seem much more mainstream.

But this judge, the hip phrase this morning is that "Bush has threaded the needle" by picking somebody who isnt some raging conservative to inspire venom on the left (at least in terms of a long 'paper trail' of decisions) and he has his right-wing bona fides so that the religious right can't go apeshit on him either.

I heard Jeff Toobin (CNN Legal Analyst) describe him as "widely regarded as the best lawyer in Washington over the last 10 years".

DOWN WITH THE TRIAL LAWYERS!!! oh wait, that talking point is only used against Democrats

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 20, 2005, 11:00 am

Brotha wrote:
Jice Virago wrote:A guy with 2 years of federal judge experience is not qualified for the SCOTUS, left or right. And to be fair, Bush Sr and Clinton both appointed centrists to the supreme court during their terms, so this is not a Republican or Dem issue. Its a Neocon crispy takeover issue.
Clinton appointed centists? Breyer and Ginsburg have both consistently voted for abortion and affirmative action. To you this makes them centrists, or atleast it doesn't definitively, by itself make them right or left wing (if it did you obviously wouldn't have called them centrists). What if a supreme court judge consistently voted against abortion and affirmative action? To you that would make them right wing, based on those facts alone. Do you see at all the problem here with your thinking?

Breyer and Ginsburg are both liberal judges, it was Clinton's choice and he made it. Bush campaigned in 04 and won reelection saying he'd appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court, which he's doing. Roberts isn't some whacko; he's a mainstream, intelligent conservative.

I find it funny that you're saying he's not "qualified," when the one thing it seems like everyone's been able to agree on so far is that he's more than qualified and competent.

75% of the US is pro choice...almost every other civilized nation around the world thats not run by a religious dictatorship has free abortion laws, supported by a much higher %...if thats not centrist i dont know what is

Deward · Post by **Deward** » July 20, 2005, 1:09 pm

I don't know enough about the guy to make a real decision on him. The fact that Bush picked him is a big negative though. I also don't like teh fact that he is so young (only 50). He could spend 30+ years in the Supreme Court. That is just too much time for any single judge to hold an office without being elected.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 20, 2005, 1:15 pm

I'm sure the democrats will soon begin a campaign of lies in an effort to destroy this guy.

Too late. It seems every right wing nut job's favorite adams apple sporting blond has taken the first shot.

We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Go Ann go...

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » July 20, 2005, 1:36 pm

Deward wrote: That is just too much time for any single judge to hold an office without being elected.

Have to disagree with you 210%, I may not like the choice but I think the court should be full of non-senile old bastards

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 20, 2005, 1:43 pm

I don't know a damn thing about him because Bush was smart enough to nominate someone without a long paper trail.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having a conservative judge on the Court. The Senate has the right of confirmation, but that right should not be used to exclude anyone who is not ideologically identical to a particular voting bloc. The Democratic Senate can't say "filibuster him because he's a conservative," because clearly, there are plenty of conservatives in the government already. You can't filibuster a man for being too extremist when there's no evidence that he's any more extremist than the entire executive branch, the majority of the legislature, and a number of sitting members of the Court.

As it is now-- with the important caveat "unless more information comes out"-- Roberts ought to be confirmed.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 20, 2005, 2:27 pm

hmmm...well apparently he "advised" bush during the 2000 recount...thats enough for me to stand against him...i still believe that congress should have a lot more power in nominating the supreme court and not just allowing a president to have his pick

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 20, 2005, 3:05 pm

Just for documentation, in a CNN, USA Today Gallup Poll the question was posed as to whether respondants thought Roe V. Wade should be overturned. Questions were asked between July 7th-10th.

68% said No it should remain as is.

28% said Yes it should be overturned.

i suppose ther eare 4% of people who dont have an opinion =)

miir · Post by **miir** » July 20, 2005, 3:59 pm

Whatever you do, don't fucking let him catch you eating french fries on the subway:

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.

"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"

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » July 20, 2005, 4:15 pm

First it's french fries and then all the sudden it's burgers and then it's ANARCHY!!!

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 20, 2005, 4:19 pm

Is that for real?

What horrible fucking society even considers that in any way a situation that should come into reality?

That really is real life big brother territory.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 20, 2005, 4:30 pm

Read the whole story, his decision wasn't as bad as miir is trying to make it sound. Miir quoted:

"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"

That was actually written by Roberts, showing his pesonal distaste in how it was handled. Robert's job wasn't to rule on whether it was appropriate or not though, it was to rule on whether her 4th and 5th amendment rights were violated or not.

If this is the best you all can do, I think it's safe to assume Robert's confirmation will go through smoothly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02106.html

On the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts would be called on to deal with some of the loftiest issues of U.S. jurisprudence. During his career in the District, he ruled on a case that hinged on one of the simplest of human actions: the eating of a single french fry.

Last October, Judge Roberts spoke for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case of the girl who was arrested at the age of 12 after she was seen popping a french fry into her mouth in a Metro station.

Roberts, writing for himself and for two other judges, upheld the constitutionality of the Oct. 23, 2000, arrest of Ansche Hedgepeth. Her encounter with the Metro Transit Police drew national attention and was frequently condemned as an example of law enforcement excess. The policy that led to her being handcuffed was later changed.

While upholding the legality of the Metro police action, Roberts -- who was nominated yesterday to fill the high court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- showed that he did not necessarily give it his personal stamp of approval.

"No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts wrote in his opinion.

"A 12-year-old girl was arrested, searched and handcuffed," he wrote. "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 the custody of her mother, some three hours later -- all for eating a single french fry in a Metrorail station."

The judge wrote that Ansche was "frightened, embarrassed and crying."

However, Roberts wrote, the question before him and his two fellow judges was not whether Metro's policies on enforcing a rule against eating in the transit system were appropriate.

What came before him on an appeal from a District Court ruling was simply whether Metro's policies violated Ansche's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth amendments. The Court of Appeals, he wrote, concluded that they did not.

Ansche's mother, Tracey Hedgepeth, said last night that she had not heard of the nomination and did not wish to comment, adding that she and her daughter have "put that incident past us."

In the 2000 incident, Metro Transit Police officers were posted at the Tenleytown-AU Station on the Red Line as part of a week-long operation to catch students snacking and breaking other Metro rules.

The station, near Deal Junior High School, which Ansche attended, was the source of transit riders' complaints about teenage rowdiness. Ansche was headed home from school when she was arrested.

Police said at the time that D.C. law required that minors caught eating on Metro or in stations be taken into custody.

Metro has modified its policy to permit written warnings and a warning to the juvenile's parents.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 20, 2005, 5:14 pm

I agree with Brotha. If that's the best dirt out there, he's breezing onto the court. Also, he does not deserve criticism for that decision.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 20, 2005, 5:23 pm

ROFL, everything in my post is 100% factual.
Right down to the verbatim quote.

Sorry if you got all upset and defensive when you thought I was criticising your poor little conservative judge. I'm pretty sure he doesn't need or want your defense.

Sabek at least saw the humor in my post.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 20, 2005, 5:24 pm

Who disputed the factuality of your quote? Brotha even re-quoted it in his post.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 20, 2005, 7:43 pm

Like I said earlier, my only concern is his lack of experience as a federal judge. Most of his background seems to be as a trial lawyer working in the interests of the right. This, in and of itself, is not reason to keep him from being appointed, nor is his rescent history as a legal council for W during the recount situation. His extremely short judicial experience and recorded stance on Roe vs Wade are what I find to be objectional.

Edit: Here is a libertarian groups compilation of his legal career. I am not terribly in disagreement with many of his stances on issues, but I sure do not like some of the people who he has worked for, namely Reagan and Jesus.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 20, 2005, 9:59 pm

This is starting to look very much like Bush trying to appease the religious right while not actually putting someone in that would overturn Roe v's Wade.

I have to wonder who Coulter's researcher is, since it didn't sound like her at all until she started spouting irrational opinion about Roberts and Miss America Contestants...

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 20, 2005, 9:59 pm

I couldn't give two flying shits about who is "elected" by Bush here.

I do however find it disgusting that a situation like the one cited above is allowed to happen in a so called evolved society.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 20, 2005, 10:03 pm

Nick wrote:I couldn't give two flying shits about who is "elected" by Bush here.

I do however find it disgusting that a situation like the one cited above is allowed to happen in a so called evolved society.

And you can't even blame the law makers, it's the people who clamour for rediculous laws and applaud long and loud every time some jackass undermines the judicial branch.

Here's the scary part; they trust politicians on sentencing more than judges.

Is it any wonder there's nothing racist about it when I say, "I fucking hate you people".

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » July 20, 2005, 10:41 pm

Frankly I'm surprised by this pick. I really don't know if I like this. I'm ashamed to admit I share some of Jice's concern that this man doesn't have the experience and is too damn young. Hell, he's MY age!!! (Let that be a lesson to you all... fuck the concept of growing old gracefully!)

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 21, 2005, 1:15 am

Remember the current court composition is 6-3 in favor of abortion rights, not 5-4. so even if this guy was a hard core pro-lifer which is uncertain, it would move the court to 5-4, keeping Roe v. Wade intact.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 21, 2005, 1:47 am

It is fairly ludicrous that Roe V Wade is even such a talking point, people do get educations, and have common sense in the US, I am sure of it, so why is it such an issue

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » July 21, 2005, 11:21 am

It is fairly ludicrous that Roe V Wade is even such a talking point, people do get educations, and have common sense in the US, I am sure of it, so why is it such an issue

Because there is a group of the religious right that want to make it an issue. Bush has said he is against Roe V Wade before. While I agree this would only make it 5-4, you are forgetting he will probably get to pick a judge to replace Renquist as well. I wonder if he is thinking this will be his easier pick and then push through a fanatic with the next one.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 21, 2005, 11:31 am

my take is that this is a solid nomination for Bush. It will go through and wont be widely criticized.

I think Bush is too weak currently to push through a "crusader" type of justice, but that may not be on his agenda anyway.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 21, 2005, 2:43 pm

This guy is certainly a safe pick, at least as far as the left and center are concerned. Whether or not he can get this guy past his "base" is another matter entirely.