Bush chooses Roberts for the Supreme Court.shouldnt be to hard to push through.
Printable View
Bush chooses Roberts for the Supreme Court.shouldnt be to hard to push through.
where you been at amsterdam?
yeh. i think most democrats wouldve preferred him over anyone else?
seems like a great pick,not much for the opposition to work with.the far left dont like him, because he is much more conservative than O'Conner and the far right dont like him because he isnt an extremist.i dont know enough yet to judge but i think a conservative on the court for at least aquarter of a century(he is 50 years old) is a good start.
deep thinking on this thread.
anything is better than the other ridiculous threads about nothing.
yeh. and the ones that go nowhere with two people making quips back and forth...
i know it isnt as important as "fixing dr.rice's teeth" but ya know.
considering that he will probably reside on the bench for 25 + years i would have thought people would have an opinion.
i was just kidding around. i dont know much about him, so we'll just have to see what he's into.
A little on Roberts:
John Roberts
Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).
His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.
Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).
For Reagan, opposed a congressional effortâ??in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Boldenâ??to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.
Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)
Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)
For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)
Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)
Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)
Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)
Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)
In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Roberts' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
thanks psycho
I wanna be mad at this. I really do. My instinctual reaction to anything W. does is to be livid, which 9 times out of 10 is the appropriate response. But so far this guy seems ok, I guess, once you realize there was no chance of a liberal or even a centrist being nominated. I'm pleased that for once it seems, W. didn't cater to the most extreme elements of his political base.
Maybe this man will turn into another Souter. Maybe not. I think the fact that he's only had two years of experience as a jurist weighed heavily in his favor in becoming a Justice. He doesn't have much for the Senate to scrutinize during the confirmation process.
he's basically a government yes man, and almost a near clone of gonzalez...but he sure doesn't seem that bad.
when we have a supreme court that says you have no property rights...it really doesn't matter what person our resident white house puppet puts on the court.
I agree somewhat with the pick. He's a moderate that leans to the Right. Just as I hoped for. Bush was smart not to put a neo-con in the chair.
Things with Karl Rove are heating up and what does Bush do speed up his nomination process. Looks like a classic cover up. Bush finds out that it was one of his right hand guys, goes back on his word to fire any INVOLVED with the case, and rushes his nomination to distract the public. All and all, he's buying more time for excuses.
Thank God for Karl Rove then.Quote:
Originally Posted by XTC
If the president wasn't stuck knee-deep in this Rove thing, he might have the so-called "political capital" to nominate a more conservative justice. As it stands now he can only fight on one front, hence the Roberts choice.
Just goes to show you how valuable Rove is to W. and Republicans in general. They've chosen to sacrifice a lifetime of judicial influence for someone who, at most, is gone in three and a half years.
the guy sounds like a good pick,anyone the far left and right crazies hate must be just right.