john c roberts supreme court

[deep]

Bush Nominates Federal Appeals Court Judge John C. Roberts Jr. for Supreme Court Vacancy
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 07:46:04 PM

President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, a senior administration official said.

Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.

Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.

Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

 

[pax]

 

[deep]

Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.







red staters will be happy

 

[financeguy]

A conservative but how conservative it is hard to judge.

 

[pax]

http://www.slate.com/id/2121270

Say it with me, everyone...

Bork! Bork! Bork!

 

[VertigoGal]

never heard of him...going to research him now, although if he's anything like Bork as you say, I'll give him a hearty

 

[deep]

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

article here

 

[Sherry Darling]

George, I defended you! "Let's wait and see" I said. "He might choose a moderate, a consensus candidate....give him a chance".

 

[melon]

It was a given that Bush would choose a conservative. When Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, he fully expected a conservative himself. Thankfully, she proved to be more independent-minded than he expected. And I don't even want to know what Bush, Sr. was thinking when he appointed David Souter, one of the most liberal judges of recent memory.

What the Senate will have to do is probe him based on his record, which, when compared to many of Bush's filibustered nominees, seems like he has a fairly spotless, yet undeniably conservative record.

The good news is that many Republican appointees in the judiciary have been the ones ruling in favor of things from gay marriage to unplugging Terri Shiavo. Maybe Bush will regret appointing someone who has a record of being faithful to the law, rather than being some reckless ideologue like Scalia or Thomas.

Melon

 

[verte76]

I don't know anything about the guy. That will change. Something tells me I'm not exactly going to be crazy about the guy.

 

[verte76]

Say it with me, everyone...

Bork! Bork! Bork!

Oh, hell. My worst nightmare.

 

[melon]

For those wondering what Roberts is like, there was a rather in-depth article written about him in February. The buzz about him becoming a Supreme Court justice was going even back then:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

It's interesting, really.

Melon

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I'm not shocked at all. Wonderful.

 

[melon]

Heh...I was reading the Democrats' reaction to his nomination. It's a lot like my reaction: kind of an implicit "I don't know much about him, but, outwardly, he doesn't seem to be as rabid as Scalia or other recently filibustered appointees." Right now, it's more of a cautious "wait-and-see" approach.

I hope that Democrats take the time to ask him all kinds of questions, and I hope that Roberts answers them directly, without skirting the questions like some of Bush's appointees like to do. If he starts avoiding questions, that's when I'm going to start expecting a filibuster.

Melon

 

[U2democrat]

lets see what happens when he gets to the senate....

 

[VertigoGal]

Heh...I was reading the Democrats' reaction to his nomination. It's a lot like my reaction: kind of an implicit "I don't know much about him, but, outwardly, he doesn't seem to be as rabid as Scalia or other recently filibustered appointees." Right now, it's more of a cautious "wait-and-see" approach.

Yeah, same here. I'm frankly not that outraged by the nomination. We'll have to wait and see what his philosophy is during the questioning of course, but his quote on Roe v Wade being the law of the land is promising to me. Of course you never know which "way" a judge will go, and that goes both ways. I just think, at this point, comparisons to Bork are a little overboard.

 

[pax]

Ah, maybe you're right.

At least I hope you're right.

 

[VertigoGal]

Ah, maybe you're right.

At least I hope you're right.

I hope I'm right too...frankly I see him turning out to be more conservative than he appears, but I don't see how he could not get approved as it is, unless there's something I'm missing.

 

[U2@NYC]

Well, the majority of the U.S. re-elected Bush... knowing what we were going to get for the next 4 years.

So this is not a surprise to me.

 

[deep]

this guy seems pretty solid

i don't expect him to get derailed

the new court will be more conservative

Clarence Thomas said "i do not evolve"

i do not expect Roberts to evolve like Warren or Brennen


i do not expect him to flat out over turn roe v wade, but they will keep trimming around the edges
W's base should be satisfied


especially if liberals put up a fuss over this confirmation

i do not expect a filibuster
he is not extreme enough and his credentials are solid



When Renquist steps down
look for Gonzales to get the nod.
This white male conservative is for the base

 

[nbcrusader]

Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

If you manage to dig just below the surface of the advocacy group statement, you would realize that Roberts is not "hostile to women's reproductive freedom" and he has already passed this questioning in his prior confirmation hearing.

 

[financeguy]

"Reproductive freedom" seems to be the latest liberal euphemism for abortion on demand. One wonders where personal responsibility comes into "reproductive freedom".

 

[melon]

I guess the biggest question is whether he injects his personal opinions in his work? Writing a brief as a lawyer and being a judge are two different positions. Again, I hope the Democrats do their job and ask the relevant questions.

Melon

 

[deep]

If you manage to dig just below the surface of the advocacy group statement, you would realize that Roberts is not "hostile to women's reproductive freedom" and he has already passed this questioning in his prior confirmation hearing.

i think that is what my next post says

07-19-2005 05:16 PM -


In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

along with my last

i do not expect him to flat out over turn roe v wade, but they will keep trimming around the edges
W's base should be satisfied

 

[nbcrusader]

Heh...I was reading the Democrats' reaction to his nomination. It's a lot like my reaction: kind of an implicit "I don't know much about him, but, outwardly, he doesn't seem to be as rabid as Scalia or other recently filibustered appointees." Right now, it's more of a cautious "wait-and-see" approach.

I hope that Democrats take the time to ask him all kinds of questions, and I hope that Roberts answers them directly, without skirting the questions like some of Bush's appointees like to do. If he starts avoiding questions, that's when I'm going to start expecting a filibuster.

Melon

Roberts is a Washington insider and has been sought by the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations for his legal acumen.

 

[melon]

Roberts is a Washington insider and has been sought by the Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations for his legal acumen.

I've been approaching this cautiously, because I don't know much about him. This is the same position that I took regarding Wolfowitz's appointment to the World Bank.

I'm trying to look at this through non-partisan lenses.

Melon

 

[BonosSaint]

Well, at least he's not Clarence Thomas. I'll reserve any further judgment for now.

 

[phanan]

I don't know enough about Roberts to formulate an opinion yet, although he appears to be a bit too conservative for my taste. Not that I'm surprised or anything.

 

[melon]

Here's another opinion on him:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/otsc.toobin/index.html

Abortion. I think [with] this, as always with the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade will be the central subject of discussion in the confirmation hearings. It's very likely there will be a lot of questioning of John Roberts about this brief he signed when he was in the solicitor general's office saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

He was representing a client at that point. The client was the first President Bush, who wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. The question will be, how much was John Roberts expressing his own views or just his client's?

Melon

 

[VertigoGal]

I didn't know his client was Bush, Sr. for that case. Wow.

Although he was quoted as saying Roe v Wade is the law of the land, that was when he was on the lower courts. Now that he's in a position to actually change that (and I do think he'll be confirmed), I'd be interested to see how dedicated he is to "upholding the law of the land."

Even though he was only acting as a lawyer when he made the statements about overturning it, abortion is a pretty divisive issue, and I've never met someone who doesn't have an opinion on it. Because it's so divisive, I can't see a person who personally supports Roe v Wade rushing to defend a person who's trying to strike it down.

But again that's just the feeling I get from the guy. I still think he'll be approved and honestly I see no reason why he wouldn't be.