BUSH PICKS John G. Roberts

July, 19, 2005

[freedrudge]

President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says...

[Fudd Fan]

Since you mentioned NARAL I went to their site. Read the two-word heading at the top of the page

The entire site is disgusting.

[Texasforever]

I'd think that TRPA would come closer to representing his views, b/c he probably had some choice about taking that case.

To try to equate a lawyers personal views to what cases is an exercise in futility. It is like asking a skunk not to stink. Lawyers take cases and advocate for clients.

[dixiechick2000]

"One can hear the Sierra Club members passing out and dropping over on their redwood decks all over California and Oregon.

The sound is a familiar one. It is the same when you drop a real watermelon on the deck."


ROTFLOL! Oh, Gramps...you are too much!
That was funny, I don't care who you are. ;o)

[coulterfan1]

To try to equate a lawyers personal views to what cases is an exercise in futility. It is like asking a skunk not to stink. Lawyers take cases and advocate for clients.

And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.

I guess for me, the biggest problem w/having to pick a Supreme Court Justice is that that person has to have been a (cough) lawyer.

[garjog]

"W. Definitely stood by his campaign promise on this one"

We sure do appreciate our President after this so much more. He didn't go wishy washy and pick someone the press might praise.

[Texasforever]

And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.

Yes and for the pro-life folks it is R v W that is the overriding concern and for the RKBA folks it is the 2nd amendment stances that is the deal breaker and for the 10th amendment folks it is the states' rights issue and on and on and on. There is no one around that can be the perfect "conservative". Why? Because your stance is in direct conflict with those in business that consider themselves every bit as conservative as you. The social conservatives goals are in direct conflict with the libertarian right and it becomes a circular firing squad.

[garandgal]

And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.

Agreed. IMO that is one of the most important issues to be considered with this nomination. Since O'Connor voted to dissent, we would actually be going "backwards" on the issue if the nominee isn't firmly on the side of property rights.

The administration's silence after the court ruling says plenty about their opinion of the issue.

Two of the main underpinnings of this republic are property rights and gun rights; undercut them, and lose the rest.

Judge Roberts has a great background; I hope we get a little more insight into his views.

[sofaman]

In this format, it's absolutely proper. And the second part of your post makes less sense than your first post did. Resorting to insults makes you look foolish.

That's all I will say on the matter. You can debate the merits of your obnoxiousness all by yourself.

Good day.

[Right Winged American]

We don't even have an adequate FENCE along the border, let alone enough border patrols to stop illegal immigrants from coming into the nation. You're telling me nothing can be done about that?

No, I mean we can't build a useful fence along that distance that can't be climbed, tunneled, or otherwise rendered useless. We can't afford to pay enough people to watch that border that way, either.

Did'ja ever drive from Brownsville to El Paso? Now imagine building so much as a barbed wire fence that long. Next, Imagine how many people it would take to watch it. See what I mean?

What I was trying to get across is that while it is physically impossible to close just the Mexican border that way; there has to be another way! I'm open to suggestions ...

[coulterfan1]

I'd have less of a problem w/him being a non-constructionist in this one area (& constructionism is what I'm concerned about, not conservatism) if I knew that he was a constructionist in other important areas. As of now, I've seen no evidence that leads me to believe that.

[Texasforever]

Define if you can a "constructionist".

[monkapotamus]

AOL Poll:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050719085909990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Is Judge Roberts a good choice for the Supreme Court?

Yes 47%
No 28%
I don't know enough about him 25%
Total Votes: 120,834

[coulterfan1]

Hopefully, the talk shows will be going over his record w/a fine tooth comb over the next few weeks. Also, hopefully, they'll make the distinction between his govt job vs his private sector work, & especially what opinions he's been credibly quoted as saying outside of work.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bork himself said he doesn't want the job. He's too old, and he's got health problems of his own.

[BigSkyFreeper]

...Although, I would have been happy with Ms. Brown.

Janice Rogers-Brown was my guess too before the name John G. Roberts was announced by the media late in the afternoon. I'm happy with the pick.

[BigSkyFreeper]

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.

Although he was appointed in 2003, what the bio fails to note is that he was nominated in 2001. His nomination was in limbo for 2 years by the obstructionist Democrats.

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.

[rmmcdaniell]

Resorting to insults makes you look foolish.

I’ve look through you other posts and dug up these nuggets:

All I hear is people like Paul Begala, that lying sack of camel excrement, saying that Republicans want to kill him and his family, and Howard Dean telling me that I've never done an honest days work in my life.

The ACLU would be in court faster than you can say Dick Durbin. Pelosi would be screaming, Hillary and Shmuckie Schumer would actually knock each oter down trying to get in front of a camera....

How more of a hypocrite can you be you self-righteous jerk who proclaims himself to be above using insults? How come you couldn’t make your points without resorting to insults? What a complete and utter idiot you are!

[Dan from Michigan]

I've never had more trouble finding a Second Amendment stance on a SCOTUS nominee in my life.

That said, POSSIBLE good news on Second Amendment Grounds.

From the pro-2a High Road website

Today, 04:41 AM #90
countertop
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NoVA and NoGA
Posts: 541

Kim,
Actually, I ought to clarify things a bit.

While Robert's wasn't a judge in the DC Circuits Seegars opinion, he was part of the En Banc panel that denied the petition for rehearing. However, he joined Sentelle and Randloph in dissenting from the denial of rehearing - and thus came down on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

In federal appellate practice - the first appeal beyond the trial court is to a "panel" of the Circuit Court. These panels are usually made up of 3 members of the Court of Appeals who rule on the appeal. Their decision is final in 90+% of appeals, however, as an intermediate step before appealing to the Supreme Court, you can request that the En Banc (or full quorum of judges) Court of Appeals rehear the case. These petitions are rarely granted.

In Seegars - if Triggerfinger is correct (I have no reason to doubt him, he has usually been pretty reliable, but I haven't read the actual denial of petition so can't really comment on it) then he was involved in the Seegars case, just in a very minor role - dissenting along with two other jurists from the decision of the court not to rehear the case.

---------------------------------- While I'd rather have Kozinski, Corrigan, or Alito, I THINK he'll go our way(he is Federalist Society). We'll see. Until I know for sure though, I'll be voting "pass" on this FR poll.

[endthematrix]

JOHN ROBERTS

Poor Hillary...

[coulterfan1]

Although I'm not a 'strict' constructionist, Wikipedia has a definition of SC that covers the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

You'll see on that page that Scalia refers to 'reasonable' constructionism or 'originalism'. That is what I agree w/. The easiest example of this for me is saying that the word 'speech' should be interpreted as 'speech', not as 'expression'. 'Speech' is an objectively definable word which simply refers to written or spoken words. 'Expression' is purely subjective. It can include all of the following & more: a book, a song, burning a flag, streaking, flipping someone the bird, etc.

I think the criteria on which a judicial decision is based should always first be the actual wording of the constitution & the founders commonly known original intent in choosing those particular words. Not the 'precedent'-based daisy-chain-to-dictatorship the courts have been following for decades.

It's late & I'm about to go to sleep, so I hope this makes sense. :)