Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”
A post-Bork disclosure such as this may mean that he wanted to leave his options open as fas as future SCOTUS appointment was concerned.
Yup, that'll be fun. How 'bout I bookmark this thread and after every ten rulings I'll post the alignment summary for each case and the affinity statistics for justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. That way everything will also be aboveboard and we can quickly resolve any dispute about classification for a given ruling. In the past couple terms the Court has heard 80 cases so I'm sure it'll be about that many this next term (unless something very dramatic happens).
We probably won't get much sense of how it's going until we get to about 30 rulings though. The earliest decisions of a term will lean heavily toward unanimous and per curiam rulings. Oh, and we should formally agree to exclude any case where any one of the three justices doesn't take part.
I'll be sure to ping our bookie along the way! ;^)
And if Ann ain't happy, there ain't anybody happy!
And GOP senator Warren Rudman, another New Hampshire buddy of Souter deserves as much of the blame. I think they both knew Souter was a NE liberal, but lied to Bush. Of course, George Bush was much more of a RINO than George W, and the people he surrounded himself with showed that. Probably the biggest disaster recent pick in years, but Roberts is in no way in that mold.
She looks so, anorexic. Hope she isn't.
Faith in Mr. Bush and his administration. Now go back to DU, troll.
Go back to DU, you naysayer. Mr. Bush knows what he is doing. If you want to run the country, get elected POTUS.
Sounds good. Bookmarked.
And I'll be sure to ping you guys to the July 2006 FReepathon (assuming that we still need FReepathons then) for payment. The term ends in late-June, so as long as Roberts makes it onto the Court by October, he'll be there for the full term. Between June and October, all they do is take "emergency" cases (like last-minute death-row appeals that generally don't produce full-blown opinions).
"Do you even know Roberts? That is simply an outrageous comment."
Hugh Hewitt vouches for Roberts...knows him personally and played some team BB with him. I hope the "Rats rake him over. He survives the baptism by fire and cements his conservatism even deeper. aka Clarence Thomas. Snowballs chance in hell that he moves leftward.
Never liked Sununu. Always heard he was a nasty-tempered old s.o.b.
That is comforting.
Did you have faith in Bush Senior when he nominated Souter? It didn't work out then did it? Faith is not enough.
Look, there is nothing anywhere to be found in his record that this guy is either solid or has a record like a Scalia in "adhereing [sic] to the Constitution" in any way I think important.
On the narrow issue of Roe v. Wade, I think it is a completely defensible proposition that in a free country, everyone, including women, have a constitutional right to be secure from invasion by government of their right to management of their body. So you might well uphold the right to privacy foundation of the decision and say but what about the right of the baby to be free from deprivation of its "life without due process of law"--an issue on which Mr. Roberts has never really said anything.
As to the rest of this, Roberts is a very very smart guy who has managed to leave no real footprints on the substance of any issue--exactly like Souter; a guy who has been campaigning for a Supreme Court appointment all his life. Under circumstances where we have enough political muscle to appoint any one of four or five choices who are clearly hard core on every single one of the issues that count.
In a business in which contention is the principal activity, whether in court or in negotiations or in just about every other daily activity, it is very suprising the extent to which lawyers, in their everyday business existence absolutly shun controversy. The name of the game is "collegial"--go along; avoid arguments. Partner's meetings in large law firms are picnics just like Board of Director's meetings in large public companies, called for the purpose of rubber stamping the Management Committee's decisions.
And most of the time, when judges get on the panel courts, the drift of their decision making is toward the noncontroversal center. I want a Supreme Court justice committed to reversal of the "switch in time that saved nine"--we have purportedly paid the price of saving nine at the ballot box--no need to provide more switchers. My rights under the Second Amendment include not only my AK-47 but all four of my bazookas and my RPG launcher. And notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court decision, I still think my private property can be taken by government only for public use.
This guy has no record of any personal commitment contrary to the two party common line on any of these things.
This guy is going to get confirmed and he is a lousy choice--I hope the Dems can come up with a long history of smoking dope between oral arguments.
And there is a huge difference between hearsay and evidence.
I respect your opinion, but I still am certain this guy is a winner. Souter is a dark spot in history for conservatives that we don't want to repeat. But I would be amazed at someone who has worked his entire career on the side of conservative republicans and is a Catholic married to an extremely pro-life wife, who ends up being a Souter. Souter fooled most people, but that was before Google. It is so much harder to fool people today as information is so available to everyone. But lawyers are lawyers....I guess we will have to wait and see, but I would be completely shocked if Roberts is not a pro-life, pro-Constitution conservative.
My hand wants to whack my boss. And my ex. And Democrats. I demand management of my own body without government interference! It's MY body!
Coulter's right on the money on this.
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.