No need to watch Dubya on TV.

Note: My time here is 8:00 PM New York Time.

quote:

Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts By DEB RIECHMANN The Associated Press Tuesday, July 19, 2005; 7:51 PM WASHINGTON -- 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, senior administration officials 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. "The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said. 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." While he doesn't have national name recognition, Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice. In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general,the government's second highest lawyer who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist before Reagan elevated the retiring jurist to the top chair in 1986. It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003. Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved. "He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1900138_pf.html

...By now the original was edited before 9:00 pm ET.

quote:

Federal Judge Roberts Is Bush's Choice By DEB RIECHMANN The Associated Press Tuesday, July 19, 2005; 8:48 PM WASHINGTON -- President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. for a seat on the Supreme Court Tuesday, delighting Republicans while unsettling some Democrats with the selection of a young jurist with impeccable conservative credentials. Roberts, 50, would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has long been a swing vote on a court divided narrowly on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, states' rights and the death penalty. The Harvard-educated Roberts learned of his selection in a lunchtime phone call from the president, according to administration officials. White House aides arranged for a prime time formal announcement as they sought the widest possible audience for a president making his first pick to the court _ and the nation's first in more than a decade. Initial reaction from Republicans was strongly in favor of Roberts. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama called him a "fabulous nominee" and predicted that if confirmed, he would "bring a nonpolitical approach to judging." Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., a leading conservative, called him "brilliant. Democratic reaction was more measured, but initially at least, offered no hint of a filibuster. "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Referring to planned hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid said, "I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts." 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 graduated magna cum laude from 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, while deputy solicitor general during former Bush's administration, 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. "The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said. 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." While he doesn't have national name recognition, Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice. In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general, the government's second-highest lawyer, who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for William H. Rehnquist before Reagan elevated Rehnquist to chief justice in 1986. It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003. Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved. "He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government. Advocacy groups on the left and the right already are gearing up for a fierce lobbying campaign in advertisements on television, radio, newspapers and the Internet. The battle is expected to cost tens of millions of dollars in spending by private groups. Television outlets were asked to broadcast Bush's announcement live at 9 p.m. EDT from the White House. Traditionally, even major appointments are made in daytime ceremonies, but the White House decided to go all out for the first Supreme Court nomination since 1994. The big splash also might divert attention from Bush senior aide Karl Rove's involvement in the CIA leak case that has caused Republicans to worry about Bush's standing in opinion polls. The court opening was created by O'Connor's announcement on July 1 that she would step down after 24 years. The first woman to serve on the high court, O'Connor had been the decisive vote in many major 5-4 decisions on abortion, religion, federalism and other divisive social issues. Bush has said repeatedly that he wants the new justice to be seated before the court begins its fall term on the first Monday in October. The president's announcement was the latest in a series of surprises about the court. O'Connor had not been expected to step down this summer. Court watchers had anticipated, instead, that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80 and ailing with thyroid cancer, would announce his retirement. But after leaving the nation _ and Bush _ in doubt for week, Rehnquist announced he had no intention of retiring and would remain on the court as long as his health permitted. In anticipation of a selection, officials said the White House had contacted selected Republican senators they hoped would serve as advocates for the nominee.

Final edit:

quote:

washingtonpost.com Bush Nominates Roberts for Supreme Court By DEB RIECHMANN The Associated Press Wednesday, July 20, 2005; 2:03 AM WASHINGTON -- President Bush named federal appeals judge John G. Roberts Jr. to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy in a decade on Tuesday, delighting Republicans and unsettling Democrats by picking a young jurist of impeccably conservative credentials. If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the 50-year-old Roberts would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, long a swing vote on a court divided over abortion, affirmative action, states' rights and more. Bush offered Roberts the job in a lunchtime telephone call, then invited him to the White House for a nationally televised, prime-time announcement. The president said his choice will "strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench." In brief remarks, Roberts said he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court in a career as a private attorney and government lawyer. "I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves," he said. "I look forward to the next step in the process before the United States Senate," he added. That was a reference to confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, expected to begin in late August or early September. That would allow plenty of time for the Senate to meet Bush's timetable of a vote before the high court begins its new term on Oct. 3. Bush administration officials arranged for Roberts to pay his first courtesy calls on leading senators on Wednesday after breakfast with Bush in the White House residence. Republican reaction to the appointment was strongly supportive, while Democrats responded in measured terms. "I'm just a little surprised that he's already subject to criticism. But this is America," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., reflecting an emerging Democratic strategy, said he would use the hearings to probe whether Roberts can "separate his personal ideology from the rule of law." Advocacy groups on the left and the right have made plans for multimillion-dollar confirmation campaigns featuring television advertising and grass-roots organizing designed to sway swing vote senators. The ferocity of the battle is undetermined, however. Abortion _ arguably the most politically charged issue to confront Congress and the courts _ swiftly emerged as a point of contention. The abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America announced its opposition to Roberts when word of his appointment leaked before Bush's formal announcement. In a written statement, the organization cited a brief Roberts had filed with the Supreme Court while serving as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. In the brief, Roberts said "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled," referring to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman's right to abortion. In his defense, Roberts told senators during 2003 confirmation hearings to his current post 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." The National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, countered with a statement of its own. "Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion," said the group's legislative director, Douglas Johnson. "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands." While he lacks national name recognition, the Harvard-educated Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice. His professional resume also includes a turn as clerk to William H. Rehnquist, who is 80 and battling thyroid cancer but recently affirmed his intention to remain as chief justice as long as his health allows. It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and was confirmed by voice vote. At the time, his nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. This time, the hearings will be nationally televised, the vote widely watched. Reaction from Republican senators was strongly supportive. "He is a brilliant constitutional lawyer with unquestioned integrity," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee issued a statement calling for confirmation proceedings that "treat Judge Roberts with dignity and respect." Echoing a refrain from this spring's bitter struggle over Bush's conservative appeals court nominees, he called for a yes-or-no vote before the court's term begins Oct 3. Democratic response was measured, but initially at least, offered no hint of a filibuster. "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Referring to planned hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid said, "I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts." Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Democrats would want to probe Roberts' views to see whether he holds "mainstream values." "He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government. Roberts was one of five prospective nominees Bush met with between Thursday and Saturday, according to a senior administration official who provided details of the selection before the announcement. This official said Bush's meeting with Roberts was in the sitting area of the residence so that they could get to know each other in a comfortable setting. The president's dogs, Barney and Miss Beazley, were under foot. To meet with Bush and his advisers, Roberts shuttled back and forth across the Atlantic from London, where he was teaching a class. Bush did not ask Roberts any questions about abortion, gay marriage or other specific issues that might come before the Supreme Court, the official said.

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Jul-27-2005 at 15:54

quote:

...Roberts may indeed turn out to be a wise, thoughtful, and appealing justice. Tonight when Bush announced his nomination, Roberts talked about feeling humbled, which won him points on TV. But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections. According to the government, Salim Ahmed Hamdan is the former driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden. He was captured by an Afghan militia in November 2001, during the U.S. invasion, and shipped off to Guantanamo Bay. In July 2003, the Bush administration brought charges against Hamdan, as it has done against only three others among the hundreds of suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo. Hamdan was accused of conspiring to commit attacks on civilians, murder, and terrorism, and the Bush administration moved to try him before a special military tribunal. This tribunal isn't like the courts-martial that are used for prisoners of war. It goes by rules that cut back the rights of defendants even more drastically than the tribunal that the United States has helped establish in Iraq to try Saddam Hussein has. Hamdan has no right to be present at his trial. Unsworn statements, rather than live testimony, can be presented as evidence against him. The presumption of innocence can be taken away from him at any time; so can his right not to testify to avoid self-incrimination. If Hamdan is convicted, he can be sentenced to death. The opinion Roberts joined, written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph for a unanimous panel (though the third judge, Stephen Williams, expressed a reservation in a concurrence), swallows all of that and then some. The opinion says that Congress authorized the president to set up whatever military tribunal he deems appropriate when it authorized him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to fight terrorism in response to 9/11. While the president has claimed the authority only to try foreign suspects before the tribunals, there's nothing in the Hamdan opinion that stops him from extending their reach to any other suspected terrorist, American citizens included. This amounts to a free hand—and one Bush is not shy about extending. The administration has already devised its own tribunals to review its claims that the Guantanamo detainees are all enemy combatants who are not entitled to the international protections accorded to prisoners of war. As of February, 558 hearings had resulted in freedom for only three prisoners. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the legality of these tribunals—a question that Roberts may now help decide. Hamdan also says that the defendant, and by extension the other Guantanamo detainees, has no right to petition for release under the Geneva Conventions. Hamdan's lawyers argued that, since the president is prosecuting their client in the name of the laws of war, the president has to be bound by those laws. Their claim is a fairly limited one—not that Geneva gives the detainees a ticket to challenge the conditions of confinement or to sue for money damages, but that it sets the parameters for their trials. Since 1804, it's been a basic principle of statutory interpretation—called, of all things, the the Charming Betsy principle—that federal laws authorizing the government to do something have to be read so that they're consistent with international law. Here that international law is Geneva. Yet the panel ignores Charming Betsy and reads congressional authorization to allow the president to utterly disregard Geneva's definition of how war crimes are to be tried. According to the panel, Geneva protections can't be enforced in federal court by the people who say they have been deprived of them. If the United States is a laggard in honoring one of the cornerstones of international law, the court asserts, it's up to other countries to use diplomacy to make us shape up. The panel's reasoning on this score is particularly weak. It is also at odds with a stance that Justice O'Connor took this spring. Writing for four of the justices, O'Connor said that "it is axiomatic that while treaties are compacts between nations, a treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights ... capable of enforcement as between private parties" in court. O'Connor wasn't writing about Geneva, and she wasn't writing about Guantanamo—the case was Medellin v. Dretke, in which a majority of the court declined to rule on the claim of a Mexican death-row inmate that he was being held in violation of the Vienna Convention. Because O'Connor didn't speak for a majority of the Supreme Court, she wasn't making law. But it's close to impossible to square her stance with the panel's opinion in Hamdan—not that her view will matter much once she's gone and Roberts is sitting in her chair. At oral argument, Roberts appeared to recognize some of the weaknesses in the government's stance. In particular, he quizzed Hamdan's lawyers about the Charming Betsy principle of respecting international law. But none of the reservations he appeared to harbor then are reflected in the opinion he joined. So, what does that say about John Roberts? Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring. Emily Bazelon is a Slate senior editor.

Thank You, Mr. President
Last week, John Roberts wrote Bush a blank check.

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Jul-20-2005 at 20:50

promises kept. thank you Mr. Bush.

he kinda reminds me of ned flanders w/o a mustache . .

Brace yourselves for the next pending character assassination.

Seems alright ... he doesn't have much caselaw to work with. I obviously don't like his stance on Roe v. Wade, but with some 65% of the country in support of R v. W it would be entertaining to see the backlash if they did try to overturn it. Like I said, you never know how justices are going to precide ... Souter anyone?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Seems alright ... he doesn't have much caselaw to work with. I obviously don't like his stance on Roe v. Wade, but with some 65% of the country in support of R v. W it would be entertaining to see the backlash if they did try to overturn it. Like I said, you never know how justices are going to precide ... Souter anyone?

Certainly not that I think you represent any sort of extremist positions, Occ, but it seems appropriate to throw in what Boortz said this morning since the R v. W tie in is so timely.

quote:

So what do most of the Democrats and many of the interest groups really care about when it comes a Supreme Court nominee? Is it the rule of law, interpreting the Constitution, not legislating from the bench? How they might have voted on the Kelo Vs. New London, Connecticut disgrace? For the extremist whack jobs, it all comes down to one thing and one thing only: abortion. Whether for or against it, those on the extreme fringe could care less what Roberts thinks about anything else. Only his opinion on abortion and Roe vs. Wade should be used as the litmus test to confirm or reject his nomination. As a result, you can expect the leftist members of the Senate Judiciary Committee like Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Joe Biden to constantly be angling for his stand on abortion. Roberts' latest statements indicate that he believes Roe Vs. Wade is the settled law of the land, and he would do nothing to overturn it. Doesn't matter one bit what he's said in the past. All that matters is what they think he believes now.

Funny, I thought you were pro-choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Certainly not that I think you represent any sort of extremist positions, Occ, but it seems appropriate to throw in what Boortz said this morning since the R v. W tie in is so timely. Funny, I thought you were pro-choice.

Well his exact statement was:

"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."

Which could mean he has no problems upholding the law, as opposed to him actually believing in the merits of R v. W and that it should be law.

It kind of conflicts with what he argued in 1990 that:

Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

So maybe he's had a change of heart since the 90's ... or perhaps he's just being political. I'm not sure.

___________________
Retro ...

man y did he go for someone no1 knows? I want Fitzgerald to be a judge in the supreme. He at least deserves it.

Based on what I've read, I'd say that Roberts is about as moderate a conservative as the Democrats could have realistically expected Bush to nominate. Hardly an ideal candidate, of course, but I can't see them launching a filibuster over this.

His profile from Independent Judiciary:

quote:

General Background: Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001. Reproductive Rights: As a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional. Environmental Issues: As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations. As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5 Civil Rights: After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it. Religion in Schools: While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7 Pro Bono: Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants. Other Information: Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com...cfm?NomineeID=5

Hardly a great track record, but nothing I'd advocate slashing your wrists over. If nothing else, it certainly looks like yet another case of Bush II elevating one of his dad's old buddies into a position of power...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It kind of conflicts with what he argued in 1990 that: Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled." So maybe he's had a change of heart since the 90's ... or perhaps he's just being political. I'm not sure.

Yeah, what he said was, in a brief for the Rust v. Sullivan case:

quote:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled... the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Then, some time later:

quote:

"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."

Doesn't seem like the sort of "activist judge" (oh shit, there's that phrase again!) who would overturn Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat, but he hardly seems like someone who's necessarily going to be overly committed to upholding it either, so it's hard to know which way he'd be likely to vote should an abortion case make it that far. Let's just hope it doesn't.

Also, it should be pointed out that a lot of his more outlandish conservative commentary (including that abortion statement) came during his time as an attorney for the Republican party in the early 90s, when he was getting paid to espouse and defend the party's values. Given his ties to the GOP and other right-wing groups, it's entirely possible that he holds these views anyway, but it would be unfair to presume that what he was paid to say as a GOP attorney necessarily reflects his own personal views. Like I said, he's hardly the kinda guy that I would nominate if I was the president of the US (*sigh*... some day ) but it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Haven't read a whole lot on the guy, so I can't comment too much on him. He does seem to have a much heavier background in politics rather than in the courts. He only has, what, 2 years experience as a judge? That should be a little bit of concern, but not a big one.

I read a few things on him from a coupla Lefty blogs - most of 'em are trying not to be too reactionary. Some things are a bit of a concern - his comment on Roe v Wade (which I tend to agree with Occ's sentiments on it), seems not to think too high of the federal Violence Against Women Act advocated for prayer in schools, and his lawfirm had a pretty big heavy hand in getting Bush in the White House in 2000 - arguing for Florida to stop counting the votes to the Supreme Court. Regardless, some pointed questions will be asked by the Dems. during his confirmation hearings. Let's see how well he can dodge direct questions.

For the political aspect of this whole debacle, well this one was not too hard to guess:

quote:

Bush accelerated his search for a Supreme Court nominee in part because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name, according to Republicans familiar with administration strategy. Bush originally had planned to announce a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on July 26 or 27, just before his planned July 28 departure for a month-long vacation at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, said two administration officials, who spoke on the condition they not be named. The officials said those plans changed because Rove has become a focus of Fitzgerald's interest and of news accounts about the matter. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=IJWRAX1A74E9

Fucking pathetic of Bush (err, Rove actually), but then again nothing is too surprising with him anymore. It's not like this is the fucking highest court in the land or anything - no need to ponder this one too long I guess.

Douche.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 - his comment on Roe v Wade (which I tend to agree with Occ's sentiments on it),

While I can certainly understand where you are coming from, it's worth putting in context. As I understand it,when he made that statement he was an attorney representing that side of the argument, so of course he's going to argue that position. With all due respect, we should hold him to his most recent, personal stance on the issue, which is that he accepts the decision as "settled law" and doesn't plan on challenging it, though crazier things have certainly happened. IMHO, R v. W is too controversial of an issue and in all likelihood will probably never be reversed for the sheer reason that it is such a divisive issue that is more often used as a "litmus test" to get opposing sides to fall in line. I'd like to think that we are more concerned with issues beyond abortion, like private property rights for example. I hate that people use R v. W that way. It strikes me almost more as a political tool.

What I'd think the left would be more concerned about is the fact that the guy is so young, and therefore, if confirmed, would likely be sitting on the SC for a very long time.