Bush Nominates Roberts to Replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
:: blush ::

Thanks for saying so. :) I'm actually considering teaching as my next career move--probably teaching secondary English and going for certification as an ESL instructor. The educational inequalities in this country--neither gay dudes who want to get married nor, in all honesty, Jerry Falwell :wink:--are the single biggest threat to the American ideal, the American ideal being that anyone from anywhere can grow up to be a reasonably intelligent, self-sufficient, productive member of society.

But law school is something I always come back to. Lawyers can be very powerful people. It's something I'd really want to do on my own terms, though--spare me torts, corporate law, tax law, etc. I'd like to do civil rights, family law, or immigration law. Good immigration lawyers in particular are few and far between--more than any other class of lawyers than possibly family or personal injury lawyers, I think that bad immigration lawyers prey on the hopes and dreams of (sometimes) desperate people. They promise things they can't deliver and they try to convince people whose immigration cases should be easy that they need to spend all kinds of additional money.

(Anyway, rant over...but thank you for the compliment!) :)
 
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6VD80.html


"Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Wednesday assured senators he would be guided by the law, not personal beliefs, on right-to-die cases. He also told the lawmakers that Congress can counter the court's decisions.

On right-to-die cases, the nominee would say little more than his oft- repeated response that it would be inappropriate to comment on cases that he might decide. "I will confront them with an open mind. They won't be based on my personal views. They will be based on my understanding of the law," he said."
 
You know, if we wound up with Roberts as Chief and Edith Brown Clement taking O'Connor's spot, this whole SCOTUS thing might shape up to be not too bad. I really have to admit that Roberts is coming off extremely well. This might be one of Bush's rare smart moves. :wink:

In all seriousness, though, kudos to Roberts for handling himself so well, and to the people who vetted him. I feel much better after a few days of following the hearings pretty closely (via the NPR streams...go, NPR!). I mean, even Nina Totenberg can't say much bad about the guy.

I'm cautiously optimistic.
 
vertigogal, i am EXTREMELY impressed that someone of your age is interested in this and can comment intelligently. :bow: We need more young people like you in this country. :applaud:

I can't wait to meet you in November! :hug:
 
I haven't watched the hearings, but I've been listening to them on the radio at work. The Chief Justice-to-be is undoubtably a smart man and is acquitting himself well--helped by being a voice of reason amongst politicking on both sides. I was impressed by his knowledge and unperturbable nature, but you know, for all the listening, I still don't know a thing about him. He gave a little bit to everybody and not enough to anybody to really gauge what he is going to be like. I'm not comforted nor discomfited just left with a very clever empty slate. He doesn't give much away.
 
Last edited:
After listening to some of the hearings, it is interesting to see the stark contrast between an intelligent person and idiot politicians.







Find the redundancy in the statement....
 
Nice Political Move

Bloomberg opposes Roberts' nomination

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday opposed John Roberts' nomination to be U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, making him the first noted Republican to break with the Bush administration over who should lead America's top court.

Bloomberg, a former Democrat seeking re-election in a heavily Democratic city, said Roberts had failed to show a commitment to upholding the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision establishing a right to abortion.

"I am unconvinced that Judge Roberts accepts the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling as settled law," Bloomberg said.

Roberts' answers to questions in Senate confirmation hearings "did not indicate a commitment to protect a woman's right to choose," he said. "For that reason I oppose the nomination of Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."
Click to expand...

True concern, or just shoring up the Pro-Choice vote?
 
I would think the "devil you know" (not that he's a devil in any way, at least compared to what we could get), would be safe and preferable to the one you don't. It does seem rather partisan. I think he did play it so safe in his answers that it makes me a bit suspicious..I don't get the whole "warning" concept :huh:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092000915.html

The Senate Democratic leader, pressed by several allies to build as much opposition as possible to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., said yesterday he will vote against President Bush's choice for chief justice. But Sen. Harry M. Reid of Nevada conceded that Roberts will be confirmed easily next week and "will get plenty of votes" from his fellow Democrats.

Reid's announcement, made in a closed party caucus luncheon and then a Senate speech, came as Democratic senators are struggling with the first chief justice confirmation in 19 years. Many party activists want them to show as much solidarity against Roberts as they can muster. Not only does Roberts's conservative philosophy deserve it, they argue, but it also would serve as a warning to Bush that Democrats will fight vigorously if Bush names someone even further to the right to succeed centrist Justice Sandra Day O'Connor this fall.
 
Democrats are scrambling for a strategy to get better control of the next nominee.

Roberts did the right thing by "playing it safe" with his answers. The alternative is that judicial appointments would essentially buy votes by taking stances on issues before they are confirmed. That would be a pure political model for appointment of Justices.
 
from John Edwards..

Dear Friend,

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the most important judge on the most important court in our country, responsible for protecting and upholding the rights and freedoms outlined in our Constitution. I have carefully reviewed Judge John Roberts' testimony and listened to him give unsubstantial, boilerplate answers and avoid answering even the most basic questions about his own views today.

Based on everything I have seen and read from Judge Roberts' work in the Reagan Administration, his past opinions, and his most recent testimony, I wanted you to be the first to know that I must oppose his nomination to be our country's Chief Justice.

I do so because we do know the views and positions he took prior to the recent hearings. Judge Roberts opposed efforts to remedy discrimination on the basis of sex and race. He opposed measures to protect voting rights. He denigrated the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. He wanted to allow Congress to strip away courts' jurisdiction over controversial subjects.

Although he has presented himself as a supporter of judicial restraint, I do not see enough evidence that Judge Roberts would show restraint when his own political commitments are at stake. In light of his past positions, I believe he had an affirmative obligation to make the case to those who might confirm him that he repudiates the positions that he had previously advocated in his professional career. He made a choice and refused to meet that obligation. I cannot support someone who I am not convinced will preserve the liberties and freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution and our laws.

Please join me in fighting for the principles and values that each of us cherish. Contact your Senators and tell them to vote no on Judge Roberts' nomination.
 
As much as I do love John Edwards, I think it would be very counterproductive to mount an opposition to Roberts. I stand by my earlier statements that liberals could do far, far worse than John Roberts, and that no one can argue with his credentials--they're sterling to say the least.

I think the Dems should hold their fire on this one and wait and see who the next nominee is. I suspect you may see less Rehnquist/O'Connor and more Scalia/Thomas in Bush's next pick, and that's who the Democratic Senators would really need to fight.
 
Last edited:
Leahy to vote for Roberts

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday he will vote to confirm John Roberts for chief justice of the United States after leading lawmakers met with President Bush to discuss candidates for the other high court vacancy.

The announcement by veteran Sen. Patrick Leahy came amid virtually unprecedented executive-legislative branch jockeying over not one, but two high court openings, seats left vacant by the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Roberts' confirmation was virtually assured even before Leahy's announcement. The Vermont senator's decision, made public shortly after he and three other leading senators met privately with Bush at the White House to discuss candidates for O'Connor's place on the bench, came on the eve of the Judiciary panel's vote on whether to favorably recommend Roberts' confirmation.
Click to expand...
 
Senate Judiciary Committee votes 13-5 in favor

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts' nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring the conservative judge confirmation by the Senate next week.

Three Democrats joined the committee's 10 majority Republicans in a 13-5 vote to advance the nomination to the full Senate.

Five Democrats -- Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois -- opposed Roberts.

Feinstein, the committee's only woman, announced she would oppose Roberts, while Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, decided to support making the conservative judge the nation's 17th chief justice.

"I will vote my hopes today and not my fears," Kohl said.
Click to expand...
 
nbcrusader said:
Democrats are scrambling for a strategy to get better control of the next nominee.

Roberts did the right thing by "playing it safe" with his answers. The alternative is that judicial appointments would essentially buy votes by taking stances on issues before they are confirmed. That would be a pure political model for appointment of Justices.
Click to expand...



i think you're right. Roberts was the best politician in the room.

the fight is coming up. as i mentioned in another post, i predict a fire-breathing right-wing activist minority judge. and a brutal battle.

the country is united (or at least collectively aghast) at the gross incompetence of the Bushies, post-Katrina and as Iraq crawls towards 2000 dead. also, if you read the two opposite ends of right wing columnists (the lovely Peggy Noonan http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007291, or the bat-shit insane Ann Coulter, http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi), they are rather appalled at the post-Katrina spending grotesqueries.

time for Bush to rile the base with a little fire and brimstone.
 
Roberts confirmed as chief justice

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Judge John Roberts was easily confirmed Thursday to be the 17th chief justice of the United States, winning Senate approval with a solid majority.

He is expected to be sworn in to the post later in the day during a ceremony at the White House. He will be sworn in by the senior associate justice, John Paul Stevens.

The 78-22 vote ended a nearly three-month roller coaster ride for the 50-year-old federal appeals judge.
Click to expand...
 
also, methinks that the DeLay bru-ha-ha will make Bush that much more likely to nominate a fire breathing social conservative in the Scalia mold in order to change the conversation to the silly emotionalism of "moral values" and divert media attention away from all the GOP scandals and the newest catch-phrase "culture of corruption."
 
From Wonkette :lmao:

http://wonkette.com

Roberts First Act: Installing Bush as Senate Leader

From the official White House transcript of today's swearing in of the Chief Justice: The process we have just completed epitomizes the separation of powers that is enshrined in our Constitution.

My nomination was announced some 10 weeks ago here in the White House, the home of the executive branch. This morning, further up Pennsylvania Avenue, it was approved in the Capitol, the home of the executive [sic] branch. And tomorrow, I will go into the Supreme Court building to join my colleagues, the home of the judicial branch, to undertake my duties.

Well, two out of three ain't bad. Also? The White House wishes...

Full remarks after the jump.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
 
Irvine511 said:
also, methinks that the DeLay bru-ha-ha will make Bush that much more likely to nominate a fire breathing social conservative in the Scalia mold in order to change the conversation to the silly emotionalism of "moral values" and divert media attention away from all the GOP scandals and the newest catch-phrase "culture of corruption."
Click to expand...

If Bush's numbers were much higher, he would nominate Bork. He may just nominate an African American woman.
 
nbcrusader said:


If Bush's numbers were much higher, he would nominate Bork. He may just nominate an African American woman.
Click to expand...


bork was unfit
during his hearings he defended poll taxes
-a mental weakling

Justice Janice Rogers Brown?

ap_janice_rogers_brown.jpg


another bad choice
 
deep said:
bork was unfit
during his hearings he defended poll taxes
-a mental weakling
Click to expand...

Bork challenged the underlying principles to many concepts - he was willing to ask the hard, intellectual questions (like what is a right of privacy?)

Legally, a brilliant man.

Politically, a sitting duck.
 
nbcrusader said:


If Bush's numbers were much higher, he would nominate Bork. He may just nominate an African American woman.
Click to expand...



see, i think he's got to rally his base.

i predict a fire-and-brimstone minority female.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
907
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Eliza Dushku OpEd
Replies
1
Views
753
Moonlit_Angel
Moonlit_Angel
jeevey
Pleasure Based Sex Education- is it insane or sensible?
Replies
9
Views
846
cobl04
cobl04
D
Lemon
Replies
2
Views
861
dettersree
D
WithoutSpeaking
Seconds - Chapter 6
Replies
6
Views
1K
Galeongirl
Galeongirl

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom