John G. Roberts

17 thoughts on “John G. Roberts”

1. Salazar will key off of Reid’s statement until the research is completed.  Reid said some of what I noted: he is certainly legally qualified, but he’ll have to pass through the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questioning, which should be extensive.

   I expect such questions will focus on his opposition to Title IX for the NCAA, his evasiveness on certain questions during his last confirmation (including Roe), and certain other points.

   In the end, I expect he will be able to pass through without a filibuster, but it depends on his answers and the attitudes of individual Senators.

   Log in to Reply

2. As someone who didn’t decide to vote for Bush over Gore until he got into the voting booth because of his concern about the kind of people Bush would appoint, I gotta say, I think he’s finessed this one.

   He’s appointed a young (50), highly regarded legal mind whose paper trail is short and relatively unrevealing. While NARAL and some shrill Dems have already announced their opposition, I don’t think they have much to stand on. Thus, after the obligatory hue and cry, he’ll be confirmed by Oct. 1, I suspect.

   If they’re smart (a big if), the Dems will keep their powder dry for the next opening, when they may have a stronger case. Once again, the “dumb Bush” outsmarts the bright Dems.

   What I don’t like about this nomination is that it’s another Harvard man. What’s wrong with someone from CU—Ward Churchill, for example?

   Log in to Reply

3. Ugh, Churchill for any judicial position.  Now I have to go clean my brain out.  Thanks.

   Looks like lots of folks are not happy with Roberts out of the gate.  NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Human Rights Campaign are all out against him.  The rest of the Lefty organizations are a bit slower, but they’ll be against him, too.  The main problem HRC has against Roberts is the reasoning he gave for dismissing Roe: no privacy right is enumerated in the Constitution (9th Amendment not withstanding…).

   I can see the NAACP coming out against him for opposing affirmative action; NOW and other womens’ rights groups being against him for trying to shoot down Title IX; and NRDC and other environmentals will see his pro-corporate, anti-endangered species rulings as unacceptable.

   He was acceptable as a Circuit Judge, but I wonder given the strength of opposition that seems to be building if the Democrats will mount a filibuster after all, or place a hold on the nomination.

   Oh, well – back to Rove and Tancredo; Roberts’ confirmation hearings aren’t until September, and there’s juicy new stuff on Rove v. Plame today…

   Log in to Reply

4. There may be quite a list of organizations against Roberts by tomorrow morning, but really, it’s just a laundry list of the usual suspects – and that makes them boring. The only surprise tonight is the nominee himself. The opposition is not newsworthy at all. NARAL, HRC and PP and the other anti-life groups were all going to oppose whoever the President nominated. The Dems had an opportunity here to step up and not be the Party of No, but it’s so instinctive. Dick Durbin couldn’t help himself but take a swipe at the nominee.

   Also, as far as Schumer’s List (of questions), thanks to precedent set by Justice Ginsberg, he doesn’t have to answer to those…

   Log in to Reply

5. I don’t know that NARAL and PP would have opposed Clement; I think she was a better pick overall, despite her even more paper-thin record.  She at least acknowledged the privacy right as defined by the SCOTUS, while Roberts clearly held his nose while saying Roe was “settled case law”.

   Roberts is clearly a political no-brainer for someone who is in to “staying the course”.  “Strict Constructionist” activist, at least marginally in support of religious involvement in government (including abortion), and in favor of Executive deference.  If I were the Democrats, I’d at least have hoped for a more moderate candidate on at least one of those three prongs.

   Log in to Reply

6. John Roberts is a typical pro-corporate partisan hack.  Roe v. Wade is probably safe because the administration doesn’t really want it struck down.  (Catholics would swing back Democratic.)  But will he protect big business?  Sure.  It’s been his whole life.

   Log in to Reply

7. I’ve seen the phrase “partisan hack” bandied about quite a bit. I have to say I think calling someone who edited tke Law Review at Harvard and argued 39 cases in front of the Supreme Court before the age of 48 a “hack” makes you look ridiculous, makes Democrats look ridiculous, and does nothing to advance the Dems agenda. He may be partisan, but he is not Clarence Thomas.

   Log in to Reply

8. Interesting that democrat Tom Strickland is supportive of Roberts’ nomination and encouraging Salazar to follow his lead.

   Log in to Reply

9. Hey, Donald – I actually agree with you today! 

   It gets annoying when just going to Harvard is listed as a credential – I’d like to know what  you did at Harvard, not just that you went. I know plenty of “Harvard-men” who wasted their college days just like many others did at non-prestigious schools, and frankly ended up idiots.

   Not saying Roberts is in that category – considering his resume it’s doubtful. But, I enjoy the times I can agree with DLJ.

   Log in to Reply

10. I’ll stand by “partisan hack.”  That’s what Rehnquist and O’Connor were too.

    Log in to Reply

11. Nearly all federal judges are political hacks, no surprise there.

    To say he’ll continue to support big business though??  Left and Right support big business together; the Left merely denies it does.

    Last time I checked (emminent domain) the supreme’s put on the court by the Dem’s just went for big business, and crapped all over the ‘little guys’ and the ones put in by the GOP did the opposite.

    Log in to Reply

12. I’d say the eminent domain case (Kelo) shows just how much of an activist political bent the GOP justices have…  None of the “Democratic” justices liked their ruling, but they did find it Constitutional (and urged Congress and other jurisdictions to enact appropriate limits on themselves…).  This is one point where I disagree with the Dems on Roberts: the “Great French Fry Arrest” case.  Roberts may have ruled against that 12-year old girl for eating a french fry on the Metro, but the opinion did note that the justices weren’t happy with having to make the decision, but that it was the legal decision to make.

    Roberts, OTOH, has penned several opinions where he was rebuked by his peers for going way outside the plain language of the law in his dissents.

    As far as being a political hack, I think Roberts qualifies more easily than most of the other justices.
    * He was involved in Ken Starr’s long-running fiasco.
    * He was involved in the GW Bush 2000 recount fiasco.
    * He was involved in Iran-Contra.
    * He spent most of his career as an appointed Republican solicitor for the USA (Regan, Bush I).

    It’s not like he’s unique, but on a partisan level, he has few equals.

    Log in to Reply

13. The Constitution has pretty plain words about eminent domain, the the left supreme’s read into it.  Their rulings and then telling the states and Congress to put their own limits on it is kind of backwards…the limit was already in the Consitution.

    I see your points though Phoenix. 

    As for hack’s, Ginsberg’s leadership work with the ACLU counts as a hack in a big way.  I don’t have an issue with judges being in politics, it’s kinda what they do anyway…better to take a side and have some nuts about it than not to have a position at all.

    Log in to Reply

14. Defero: before you go thinking you’re handing out truth on the “Ginsberg Precedent”, you might want to consider the counters…

    Ginsberg was suggested by Orin Hatch; she was not a partisan Clinton pick.  Sen. Leahy offered similar suggestions to Predient Bush (though I disagree with his recommendations), and Sen. Specter offered his views on the ideal candidate; Bush chose not to go with either Senator’s views.

    Ginsberg’s views were pretty clearly known, and she had bi-partisan support before entering the confirmation process.  Roberts has been more than a bit cagey in answering his previous confirmation questions, and Bush refused to release some notes that would have been useful in determining Roberts’ legal thought processes.  If a candidate hides behind evasive answers, the Senate needs to persue these issues before giving its consent.

    Also, the GOP killed off 46 of Clinton’s nominations; this one-sided “bi-partisan spirit of co-operation” lie has gone on long enough.  The GOP actions during Clinton’s tenure left our judiciary starved of justices until the Republicans regained control of the White House.  Clinton nominated moderates – Ginsberg was probably more liberal than the candidates he was considering; Roberts does not appear to hold to those values, and I don’t see any reason why the Senate should avoid asking questions because of some supposed GOP talking-point “precedent”.

    Log in to Reply

15. The Constitution makes only two limits to eminent domain: that the taking be “for public use”, and that the owner be justly compensated.  “Public use” has long held a broad interpretation, and case law for that interpretation goes back into the 1800s.  The “liberal” judges were merely following settled case law – stare decis.

    I don’t think the ACLU rises to the level of “political hack” in the same manner as involvement in three prominent GOP politically-motivated (and staffed) legal issues.  The ACLU defends anyone they think should have protection under the Bill of Rights; they recently defended Rush Limbaugh in his medical privacy rights case (lost, but they did try…).  It’s not a Democratic Party group, nor does it specifically defend the Democratic Party in any way; it’s just that lately the question keeps arising: why do GOP officials hate the Bill of Rights?

    Log in to Reply

16. ncaa football wagering

    ncaa football wagering

    Log in to Reply

17. diazepam generic valium online

    diazepam generic valium online

    Log in to Reply