Posted on 07/21/2005 12:16:59 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Since U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor resigned July 1, speculation has focused on who would be President Bush's first nominee to the high court. Would it be another woman or a Hispanic? Would it be a hard-line, "movement" conservative or a moderate, nonideological figure?
With Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the answer is known: none of the above.
Roberts, as one White House counsel put it, has credentials that jump off the page. No fictional, idealized résumé could be more glowing: top of his high school class and football team captain; graduation with honors from Harvard University and its law school; a clerkship with William Rehnquist, now chief justice of the United States; partnership in an established Washington law firm; undisputed brilliance as an appellate lawyer before the Supreme Court, where he won 64 percent of 39 cases argued.
Several historians and commentators have said the Supreme Court needs a politician rather than an academic or career jurist. Roberts comes closer to the first. He was a White House counsel under President Ronald Reagan and deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush.
Like many Bush appointees, Roberts has a family connection. He served in the administration of the elder President Bush, who first tried to place Roberts on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Roberts advised Republicans during the litigation that decided George W. Bush's victory in 2000.
Both critics and supporters describe Roberts' record of briefs and opinions as thin and enigmatic, but the thrust seems clear enough. Hardly surprising, Roberts' views dovetail with the policies of George W. Bush.
Roberts ruled that the Constitution does not require police to act sensibly at all times, leaving officers free to arrest and cuff a child who eats a forbidden french fry on the subway. Roberts agreed that the administration could use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
Conservative supporters say Roberts is reluctant to write new law, all the while hoping he will vote to overturn the settled law regarding abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade.
Within the bounds of civility, these topics will be fair game when Roberts is questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee. For some Americans, the hearings given Supreme Court nominees are their best exposure to constitutional history and law.
In addition to his credentials, Roberts has arithmetic on his side. The Senate contains 55 Republicans, and Roberts' solid record is likely to attract at least five conservative Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. If President Bush intended to satisfy his conservative base without provoking a Democratic filibuster, he probably could not have made a better choice than Roberts.
Roberts' opinion is a good example of conservative jurisprudence. He begins by noting that "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was "apprehended" have since been changed. Nevertheless, the controlling law was clear, and the court was not authorized to second-guess the wisdom of the District's policies: "The question before us," Roberts wrote, "is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution." One basic difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives understand that there are any number of ideas that may be stupid, but are not unconstitutional. As Roberts wrote: "Rational basis review does not authorize the judiciary to sit as a superlegislature." The Hedgepeth case may tug at certain heartstrings, but it plainly was decided correctly. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision, so the conclusion was unanimous. It's hard to paint a judge who is part of a unanimous consensus as "out of the mainstream."............***
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011085.php
However, the fact that he's a current member of the Federalist Society and that he worked for Ronald Reagan's White House, gives some insight.
You get what you pay for - here's a site:
John G. Roberts Jr. From dKosopedia, the free political encyclopedia.
Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic
Also as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Roberts co-authored the government’s amicus brief in a private suit brought against Operation Rescue by an abortion clinic it had targeted.14 The brief argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection. Roberts took this position in spite of Operation Rescue’s admission that its goal was to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to shut down the clinic during its protests. Although the government’s brief acknowledged that only women could become pregnant, it argued that conspiring to prevent people from seeking constitutionally-protected abortions did not constitute gender discrimination. It asserted that, at worst, Operation Rescue was discriminating against pregnant people, not women.
The brief in Bray also took the additional step of pointing out that the Supreme Court had not previously decided whether women were protected from private conspiracies to violate their equal protection rights, under the relevant civil rights statute,and urged the Court not to reach a decision on this question, rather than arguing that the Court should definitively state that women should be afforded protection by the statute, as was within the Court’s power in this case.
The Supreme Court accepted Roberts’ argument in a 5-1-3 decision, with Justices O’Connor (the justice whose seat he is being nominated for), Stevens, and Blackmun dissenting. However, Justice Souter, while jopining the majority, disdainfully rejected Roberts’ arguments, writing that:
It is also obvious that petitioners' conduct was motivated "at least in part" by the invidious belief that individual women are not capable of deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy, or that they should not be allowed to act on such a decision. Petitioners' blanket refusal to allow any women access to an abortion clinic overrides the individual class member's choice, no matter whether she is the victim of rape or incest, whether the abortion may be necessary to save her life, or even whether she is merely seeking advice or information about her options. Petitioners' conduct is designed to deny every woman the opportunity to exercise a constitutional right that only women possess. Petitioners' conspiracy, which combines massive defiance of the law with violent obstruction of the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens, represents a paradigm of the kind of conduct that the statute was intended to cover.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
From everything I've read, it appears Mr. Roberts is at least as conservative as O'Connor, but that's not saying all that much. It's a pretty safe bet he's not another Souter considering his Republican connections from the past. But it's also likely he's not another Scalia or Thomas. As Ann Coulter points out, he's 50 years old and has never written or said anything controversial, LOL!
It'll probably take a couple of years' worth of rulings before we find out who we have here. That's what bothers Coulter, and it bothers me. I would've been much more comfortable with Luttig or Olson. Why does Bush believe he has to go with a stealth candidate when the country is obviously more conservative than liberal?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Well, she's wrong.
Just look at Post#5 and then go to the LINK for more.
The required picture:
I will.
Olsen, sadly is too old for this nomination.
Luttig is one of Roberts' best friends.
Mark Levin thinks that Roberts is okay and I'd takes his word about this matter, over Ann's, any day of the week and twice on Sundays!
Mark Levin likes him; and he KNOWS what he's talking about.
The hundreds of conservative endorsements including Rhenquist and Scalia apparently pale next to the opinion of one acerbic pundit for the minority.
Been reading blogs tonight and I don't recall who pointed this out, maybe Hugh Hewitt? That Roberts was in special council for Reagan. Meaning very likely there ARE paper trails on Roberts that the W.H. can not release, but that the President had access to.
Look at the nics of those who have been posting like DUers, about Roberts, since he was announced. Is there a common thread? YOU BET THERE IS! Just about every single one of 'em has trashed the president, on FR. Many are fringers...for whom NO Republican is "worthy" or their vote. And these are also the same people, who were beating their breasts and howling at the moon, FOR WEEKS, wrongly claiming that the president was going to nominate Gonzales and that they would not vote GOP ever again, nor give them any money either.
But just WHO did these simpletons want the president to nominate? Why Ann Coulter or Bork or that raving idiot Savage. With that kind of "intelligence", is it any wonder that they're still foaming at the mouth and screaming with rage?
Ann Coulter has made a grave long-term error in bashing Judge Roberts. He's solid. His opinions in future years will continue his conservative career, and she will have been the one who dissed him.
Yes, I recognize the names.
There are a few conservatives in the bunch genuinely weak kneed but the majority of the minority have been against Republicans, against Bush, against conservatism though they'll deny it, and were W-R-O-N-G about Gonzales. Which is why I've cut off direct replies to them. I know who they are, they know who they are, and I'm tied of playing the game.
Of course they are out in the middle of the night trying to stir dissent since almost everyone else is asleep, as I should be. :-) It is the only time of the 24/7 they can pretend they are the majority voice on FR.
Laura Ingraham's wee rage against Gonzales can sort of be excused, though I doubt that the president will forget that; but Ann's childish, uncalled for,baseless, and very STUPID attack on Judge Roberts, is a grave error on her part and one she will ALWAYS be ridiculed and remembered for.
Sorry, I forgot to throw in the political naifs/nervous Nellies into the mix. They talk about the GOP being spineless, but they are far worse...they're weak kneed and spineless.
Don Imus' web page says that John Roberts is scheduled for 8:29 a.m. ET (5:29 a.m. PT). Does anybody know if this is for real? Or is there somebody else named John Roberts who is going to be on?:
Imus homepage:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036713/
I have NO idea, but Don Imus is a brain dead cretin, so who cares?.
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.