Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
How about suggesting "let the little buggers take care of themselves"
You agree taht the right to privacy protects abortion?
Judge John G. Roberts
This post is part of a series of profiles of potential Supreme Court nominees. Each entry includes a brief biography, relevant links, and (if applicable) short descriptions of some notable opinions.
Brief biography:
Judge Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 by President George W. Bush (he was also nominated by the first President Bush, but never received a Senate vote). Before his appointment, he practiced at Hogan & Hartson from 1986-1989 and 1993-2003. During the interlude, he was the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. He also served in the Reagan administration as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General from 1981-1982 and as Associate Counsel to the President from 1982-1986.
Judge Roberts attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He then clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit and for Justice Rehnquist.
Judge Roberts is fifty years old. He and his wife have two children.
Relevant links:
Judge Roberts's Federal Judicial Center profile is available here. His Department of Justice nomination bio is here. Tony Mauro's profile for Law.com is here.
The possibility of a Roberts nomination has been thoroughly covered by legal blogs. SCOTUSBlog's four-part series can be found here: Part I; Part II; Part III; Part IV. The Volokh Conspiracy's recent discussion wrapped up here (see the end of the post for links to the rest of the discussion).
The debate on Judge Roberts's nomination to the D.C. Circuit (he was nominated in 2001 and confirmed in 2003) provides a preview of likely public reaction to a Supreme Court nomination. Liberal groups criticized many of the positions he argued while working in the Reagan and Bush I administrations. This report from the Alliance for Justice is representative. As this report from NARAL illustrates, pro-choice groups focused on the anti-Roe stances taken in briefs written by Roberts during his time in the Solicitor General's office. The Department of Justice's summary of the support for Judge Roberts's nomination is available here.
Selected notable opinions:
Hedgepeth ex rel. Hedgepath v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (available here). Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Roberts rejected Fourth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause challenges to the arrest and detention of a twelve-year old girl for eating french fries on a Metro train. The case received some media attention because of its extreme facts--as Judge Roberts noted in the first line of his opinion, "[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation."
Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (available here). In his dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Roberts criticized the panel's holding that a regulation governing the treatment of a non-commercial species of wildlife was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. He argued that Lopez and Morrison required the court to adopt a narrower rule for Commerce Clause challenges, but also suggested that there might be other bases on which to sustain the regulation.
Of course, I may have to eat my words. We shall see.
Not sure, perhaps another freeper can answer.
"I want somebody who will support the Constitution as written, not make new law, and certainly not take Internatiional law into consideration."
Exactly what I want. Unfortunately, the public, including most here, have bought into the shorthand of "liberal" and "conservative" judges, and both sides accuse the other of "legislating from the bench" so that these phrases have lost all meaning.
The question should be, do you want a constructionist, one who implements the will of the Legislature, unless that will is clearly unconstitutional, or a judge who feels that his or her policy preference is superior to that of the Legislature? It's a difference of judicial philosophy, one that "liberal" and "conservative" doesn't quite capture.
On this board we scream about "judicial activists" but you'll see that the main reason people scream about Gonzalez is that he did not act like an activist in a Texas parental notification case. They wanted him to override the Legislature with no Constitutional basis to do so.
I thought their children were doomed when Bush was re-elected? Now their children are doomed because O'connor is gone? LOL
The AP story is "full of it." The President has probably been prepared for a long time, for whatever was about to happen.
"So what is the case against Gonzales."
Anti 2nd amendment, associations with MECHA and LA RAZA.
Exactly.
They don't want activist judges until it's "activism" THEY want.
And they don't see the hypocrisy.
"There is a difference between social conservatives and conservatives that are both social and fiscal. Social conservatives I have met are unbending under any circumstance and if they don't get their way, they will pick up and go home and let a liberal win. I consider them the "my way" or "no way" crowd. Look at what just happened in recent months, court rulings go against what they want and they want judges impeached and an activist court."
Hear, hear
Gotta go to work. Yall keep arguing!
She is mentioned in an AP story. They say Bush needs more time because he was not really prepping for O'Connor to quit.
I'd love to impeach Anothony Kennedy and David Souter but sadly we don't have the votes.
The AP is ridiculous. If they think GW was not prepared for multiple vacancies they are sadly mistaken. It has been speculated for years that she would retire.
I hadn't thought about Kennedy.
Did W do his public announcement? Did he say anything?
Bill Milliken(thank God most of his type were pushed to the margins in the mid 80's by John Engler) even backed John Kerry. Dick Riordan backed DiFi, Boxer, Gray Davis, and Bill Klinton. Lincoln Chafee refused to vote for Bush.
And social conservatives stayed home in large numbeers or voted for Perot helping BC get in office.
Better than flat out voting for Klinton like Riordan.
Of course I would.
I don't think that Our Lord's Judgement should be confined by the checks and balances that are built into our judicial system.
I'm shocked that you would even make such a blasphemous suggestion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.