Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
bump
There could be some strategery here, but I tend to doubt it. Ann is considered by the left to be a total right-wing whackjob. If she supported him, that would be a strike against him in some circles.
DUmmies also hyperventilated on Souter. Again, is she wrong about Roberts opposition to time limits on welfare? Nobody has addressed this point.
Bush could nominate Leon Trotsky or Lenin to the Supreme Court and the mainstream leftist Dems would attack them.
The Dems simply hate Bush - period. They will oppose ANYTHING or ANYONE he supports. Its a visceral, unreasoned hatred for a man who is far from a far-right conservative. Its grounded in a personal vendetta.
John G. Roberts Biography
Some say John G. Roberts is a Rehnquist clone, sounds perfect to me.
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.
Do you see anything here that makes you believe he is anything but a strict constructionalist, originalist and deep thinking conservative?
>> She is man enough <<
Umm, unfortunate choice of words, giving the ridiculous conspiracy theory being floated by the barking moonbats over at DU.
I for one, am waiting on EIB's take on Roberts.
You want fat chicks, cruise a MoveOn.org rally.
So that was you who woke us up at midnight. Next time call before 9.
No. But I believe Roberts is a solid Constructionist. He has ruled this way all throughout his career. Don't forget, he's a judge not a legislator.
If you'll accept anecdotal evidence, a rock-solid conservative co-worker of mine worked with him for several years & swears this is the best choice Bush could have made.
She is right, this is a missed opportunity. We could have pounded the Dems into the ground, and driven them into heretofore unknown reaches of publicly witnessed insanity.
True about any lawyer's defense and his personal opinion.
I'm sure that any defense of an alleged murderer in court certainly doesn't mean that his lawyer agrees with him.
Anyone who confuses Roberts with Souter just is not credible on this issue.
I agree with the always-brilliant Ann that it's troubling that some of Roberts's words seem meant to disassociate himself from his "Roe was wrongly decided and should be repealed" statement.
HOWEVER. Something I heard this morning might contradict this:
According to James Rosen of Fox News, the "Roe was wrongly decided" language was included in an "INTERNAL MEMO" written by Roberts, not originally intended for public consumption.
Rosen insisted that that statement therefore was a reflection of Roberts's personal views.
I don't know if Rosen is right, just reporting what I heard him say this morning on WABC radio.
What brought that on?
She obviously hasn't spoken with Mark Levin yet.
dittos
`
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.