Skip to comments.BIOGRAPHY OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS -- a conservative for the USSC
Posted on 07/19/2005 4:48:31 PM PDT by doug from upland
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Policy
Are we sure we know he is a strong conservative??????
Damn that was quick, dude!
Were you tipped off?
His roots go back to advising Ronald the great. That's promising.
Heard it on Mark Levin and just went to the bio section.
I know Levin supports him but?
mmmm hmmmm... ;-)
Good!! Let the bloodbath begin!!! Bring it on!!!!!!!!
"Following graduation he clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the following year for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist."
Clerking for Justice Rehnquist is a good sign, isn't it??
Right to life stance, anyone know?
How did you come up with that so fast? Good job.
Relax, take a deep breath and enjoy the moment. Bush promised a conservative. This guy is it.
He's very down on Roe v Wade.
I knew that he was more similar to Scalia than to Thomas, even if he dissented with Scalia in an article he wrote. Luttig was my name.
Why did Drudge have John C. Roberts? Levin knows him and is reading the things from this bio.
Can you sort of fill us in on Mark Levin's opinion of 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 Courts 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.
** Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991
Well, he's not a Texan, but everything I've heard sounds good so far.
Is that the hippie down that's good or the real down as in not good?
That's the question I want answered.
I daresay the response from Lard Ass Kennedy and his sewer rats will give us an answer.
I've been around this forum for awhile ... if Doug From Upland is right ... it will be the first time in several years.
Here we f***ing go This is no compromise at all. This nomination is as "in your face" as it is possible to get. Time to strap on the gloves folks.
[Jim Lindgren, Tuesday May 24, 2005 at 8:09pm] 2 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
John Roberts and 100-0 Support.--
My co-blogger Orin is floating John Roberts as someone who might be able to get consensus support in the Senate (if not the 100-0 support that is being debated at the Debate Club). As my last post indicated, I have a more pessimistic view of whether opposition to a Bush Supreme Court nominee could be avoided, no matter whom Bush appointed.
Roberts was nominated for the DC Circuit in 2001 and was blocked for two years in the Senate Judiciary Committee, finally getting voted out of committee in May 2003. His committee vote was strong (16-3), but not unanimous. The Senate confirmation was without a roll call vote.
One has only to read the Alliance for Justice reports and press releases on Roberts to realize that, like almost any other Bush nominee, he would face a buzzsaw if nominated to the Supreme Court.
On its website, the National Council of Jewish Women lists the following organizations as opposing Roberts for the federal judiciary in 2003:
Alliance for Justice
Americans for Democratic Action
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Council of Jewish Women
National Organization for Women
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
Indeed, Roberts was blocked when the first President Bush tried to appoint Roberts. As the Alliance for Justice puts it:
President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.
Here is the opening of the Alliance's Report, suggesting how someone whom some reasonable people might view as uncontroversial can depicted as unfit for even the DC Circuit, let alone the Supreme Court:
John G. Roberts, nominated by President Bush to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has a record of hostility to the rights of women and minorities. He has also taken controversial positions in favor of weakening the separation of church and state and limiting the role of federal courts in protecting the environment. The Alliance for Justice opposes his nomination to the D.C. Circuit.
Although Mr. Roberts is indisputably a very capable lawyer, that alone does not qualify him for such a prestigious and critical post. As a group of over 300 law professors stated in a 2001 letter to the Senate,1a lifetime appointment to the federal bench is a privilege that comes with great responsibility and requires much more. Every nominee bears the burden of showing that he or she respects and pledges to protect the progress made in the areas of civil rights and liberties, the environment, and Congress constitutional role in protecting the health and safety of all Americans. Mr. Roberts record, particularly his record as a political appointee, argues strongly that he would not do so.
While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have resegregated Americas public schools. He also took strongly anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots. [In rereading this post after posting it, I think that a personal disclosure might be advisable. I consulted pro bono for NOW on the case (Scheidler) that I think is being referred to here.]
Finally, Mr. Roberts is being considered for lifetime tenure on a court that is only one step below the U.S. Supreme Court and is acknowledged to be the second most important court in the country. His nomination must be considered in light of the special significance of that court. Moreover, Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatchs insistence on scheduling three controversial Circuit Court nominees, including Mr. Roberts, for confirmationhearings on a single day ensured that senators had no meaningful opportunity to question Mr. Roberts about his views on a number of critical issues. The Alliance for Justice urges the Senate to reject his confirmation.
This is what I was talking about in my last post. The 7 Democrats signing the deal on filibusters are in effect promising to stand up to what will be incredible pressure from organizations like those who opposed Roberts before, organizations such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Alliance for Justice, the ADA, and NOW [for whom I have done work pro bono]. Can the senators live up to their promise?
he is young,,,,
he has a Rehnquist background,,,
he has a Reagan background,,,,
SOUNDS GREAT TO ME SO FAR!!!!
Levin LOVES the choice.
Damn yer fast on the draw!
The guy who was supposed to replace Dan Rather?
Where can I listen to Levin?
With that crew lined up against him, he MUST be good value!
Hugh Hewitt can be heard now at www.krla870.com
If true, this is a dynamite nomination. He appeared at my law school...and he is a rock-ribbed conservative. Of that....you can be certain.
LOL... no, same name WAY different guy.
This may have been the best draft choice on the board. He probably made enough money in private practice to be financially secure and yet has ample public service on his resume.
Good choice President Bush.
Sorry about that.
The "Down" that is good is more modern than that, is newer.
I was using "down" in the older sense and showing my age in the process!
Lemme try to undo this.
He's very AGAINST Roe vs Wade.
Ken Starr? THE LEFT IS GONNA HAVE A STROKE....
To quote Flounder from Animal House..."this is gonna be grrreeeeaaaattt "!!!!
Based on the comments so far, is it safe to say that the lynching of Karl Rove has moved to the back burner?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Into the breach!
This certainly sounds promising . . . .
They want a war??? Lets give them a freaking war!!! We are behind you Mr. President, kick some ass, take some names!! Woo Hoo!! I like it.