levin has just given him his seal of approval
Let it begin..........
Interesting. Not female. Not "diverse".
Excellent
Brilliant Bait & Switch by Bush!!!
Dang. FR is darn fast. Four or five threads with this were posted within about two minutes.
Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).
Outstanding.
So how do they know this? Jeez, Bush ought to just cancel his presser and leave it all up to the media.
Info from slate.com's biography of him:
Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).
His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.
Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).
For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.
Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)
Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)
For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)
Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)
Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)
Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)
Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)
In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.
Superior choice for our Supremes!
Comments on Roberts from two weeks ago, on redstate.org
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/5/91935/56530
Judge John Roberts Rising
By: Erick · Section: SCOTUS
Heading into this week, here is how things appear to be shaping up with the judicial nomination process.
The White House is currently debating the type of nominee it wants. Part of this has to do with the filibuster. If the White House choses the standard white guy approach, it increases the likelihood that the filibuster will be used and increases the likelihood the filibuster will be annihilated. At the same time, the White House has several people on its list and is still trying to pare them down.
Most troubling for conservatives, sources close to the White House tell me that while the President is out of the country the White House will be feeling out conservatives of the breath and depth of ramifications should Alberto Gonzales be nominated.
Judge John Roberts's name has floated towards the top of the list. The President knows Judge Roberts and feels comfortable with him. Also, with several significant cases involving the government headed to the Supreme Court in the next year, one source very close to the White House suggests that Judge Roberts name is being given active consideration. In particular, I've been given the following points:
Judge Roberts and the President know each other the President is "comfortable" with him.
The judge sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and is therefore very familiar with a host of government related issues that will soon be heading toward the Supreme Court.
Importantly for this White House, Judge Roberts is seen as jurist willing to extend the Executive Branch wide flexibility in both its conduct of general official business and the War on Terror.
The Vice President seems favorable to Judge Roberts given Roberts's propensity to give the Executive Branch some flexibility (Judge Roberts participated in the In re: Cheney decision, which struck a blow to the environmentalists seeking a list of participants in energy task force meetings).
Judge Roberts is one of the few judges most likely to be very controversial to left wing groups, but be seen as a quality judge by both the public and the seven Democrats who signed the filibuster deal.
Notably, Judge Roberts got out of committee in 2003 on a 16-3 vote, which is very strong. He was confirmed to the Court of Appeals by the Senate on May 8, 2003, after several years of Democrat obstruction, but, once to the floor, made it through without significant Democrat obstruction.
Right now, both lefty activist groups and certain White House staffers are turning their eyes toward John Roberts.
Jul 5th, 2005: 09:19:35
YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS
EXCELLENT !!!!!!!!!!!!
The industrial strength can of WHOOP ASS has been opened!!!
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956
Colson calls Roberts "the smartest lawyer in America," someone who will "approach the cases with an intellectual viewpoint. I don't view him as having an agenda to promote."
But does that mean conservatives can't count on Roberts? "I don't know the answer as to how he would vote on specific issues," says Colson. "I would never ask him, and I hope he never tells anybody what he would do."
Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."
Ping!
Ralph Neas already saying there are serious problems w/ Roberts. LOL
Is this for real? He is young.
