NationStates Jolt Archive

So, What do you think of Bush's nomination to the Supreme Court - good, bad, don't know, don't care?

I think it is a good, solid choice and one that caught liberals by surprise since they expected Edith Clemens or Edith Jones or something similar. I expect the liberals to oppose John Roberts though since he is (gasp) conservative. What's your opinion?

It's a little early yet to make any sort of judgment, and this is coming from one of those (gasp!) liberals. :rolleyes:

Contrary to what you may believe, most liberals are not knee-jerk reactionaries. We know we're not going to get anyone even remotely liberal on the court from Bush--we're just trying for someone more like O'Connor than Scalia. There will be plenty of time to check this guy out and see what his credentials are--I'm in no rush.

It's a little early yet to make any sort of judgment, and this is coming from one of those (gasp!) liberals. :rolleyes:

Contrary to what you may believe, most liberals are not knee-jerk reactionaries. We know we're not going to get anyone even remotely liberal on the court from Bush--we're just trying for someone more like O'Connor than Scalia. There will be plenty of time to check this guy out and see what his credentials are--I'm in no rush.

I don't think most liberals are knee-jerk reactionaries - but the ones that are have rather large, loud mouths IMHO. And I have no problem with either Scalia or O'Connor.

So, What do you think of Bush's nomination to the Supreme Court - good, bad, don't know, don't care?

I think it is a good, solid choice and one that caught liberals by surprise since they expected Edith Clemens or Edith Jones or something similar. I expect the liberals to oppose John Roberts though since he is (gasp) conservative. What's your opinion?
Speaking of pointless and random insults..

It shouldn't take too long to check him out, he has a small paper trail. Bush made a smart political move by picking someone that you really can't argue against, because he's never been very controversial.

It shouldn't take too long to check him out, he has a small paper trail. Bush made a smart political move by picking someone that you really can't argue against, because he's never been very controversial.

Good point.

Basically, no matter who someone is and what they've done, there's no one alive that if you concentrate your efforts and pull out the microscope, you can't find SOMETHING wrong with them to complain about.

But basically, the guy seems to have a lot of respect from the legal community, both liberals and conservatives.

Of course liberal idealogs aren't going to be thrilled with Bush selecting a justice, but look at it this way--Clinton got to appoint two, but this is Bush's first. I would hope that most of the Senators recognize that the President needs to be able to select the justices he wants, and someday a Democrat will have the White House again and get to appoint his/her own justices at that time.

so, does anyone here accully know something about him?

so, does anyone here accully know something about him?

Yes.

In fact, my professor for Federal Civil Procedure and Federal Evidence was a classmate of his at Harvard Law. What would you like to know?

I think we should just wait until we have the dirt/or lack thereof on him to decide. At least that's what I am going to do.

I think we should just wait until we have the dirt/or lack thereof on him to decide. At least that's what I am going to do.
Might as well hate him now. You know we'll find SOMETHING he did.

Such as him getting breast implants when he was 21 on a drinking binge. I dunno.

Might as well hate him now. You know we'll find SOMETHING he did.

Such as him getting breast implants when he was 21 on a drinking binge. I dunno.


hah! that might actually make my vote "I love the bastard"

besides, I don't always agree with the liberals when they decide someone did something bad.

I've gotten like 5 emails from different groups about how he is the devil and we must fight to keep him out but we aren't sure what he's done wrong yet.

He's like the closeted gay, you don't really know much about him until he comes out.

As a self-proclaimed conservative, bush-hating, liberal, I'm reserving judgement. Actually, I have a few things to say on the subject, but I've posted them on my website, I won't re-write them here. One thing, though, I think this might be a good choice since this guy doesn't appear to have a lot of baggage some of Bush's other choices could've been.

People are misconstruing his work as Deputy Solicitor General with his personal opinion re: abortion.

The attorneys who work in the Office of the Solicitor General represent the Federal Government before the courts (mainly Appelleate and Supreme).

That is, the Government was his client and he was duty bound as a lawyer to represent his clients case as the client sees fit. HIS PERSONAL OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. It was the Bush 41 Administration's position that Roe should be overturned-NOT JOHN ROBERTS' PERSONAL OPINION that was the issue.

Anyone have any useful information on Roberts, John?

Did anyone see his kid dancing in front of the press while Bush was giving his speech and then trying to bite his mom when she tried to stop him. That was so cute. :)

The reports tell us the people in the middle-east and northern Europe are rejoicing. Can't be bad. Maybe this nomination will finally bring us the golden age...

The reports tell us the people in the middle-east and northern Europe are rejoicing. Can't be bad. Maybe this nomination will finally bring us the golden age...
Hahahahah. And on that day, Satan will be skating to work. ;)
About whatsisface, I dunno, it's Dubya trying to keep the heat off for a while. *shrugs* I'll probably not like him after a while

Yes.

In fact, my professor for Federal Civil Procedure and Federal Evidence was a classmate of his at Harvard Law. What would you like to know?

First off, is he the kind who will stick to his mandate of strict compliance of the Constitution, or is he the kind who will let his personal opinions sway his decisions?
What kind of guy was he?
Is he liberal, conservative, centrist, does he "tow the party line," or is he a more independent decisions maker?

Not sure if you could answer all of these, this is just what I would like to know about the guy first off, then go from there in learning about him.

First off, is he the kind who will stick to his mandate of strict compliance of the Constitution, or is he the kind who will let his personal opinions sway his decisions?
What kind of guy was he?
Is he liberal, conservative, centrist, does he "tow the party line," or is he a more independent decisions maker?

Not sure if you could answer all of these, this is just what I would like to know about the guy first off, then go from there in learning about him.

1. he would strickly interpret the constitution, which is good in that he would base his decisions on what he believes the law is, not what he thinks it should be. he believes that it is the legislature's role to write the laws, and the judiciary's role to interpret the cases and controversies over what is written.

2. polite, honest, brilliant

3. he is a conservative, but not a "republican"--his loyalty is to his belief of right and wrong; not to a political party.


This information is based on the in-class endorsement by my previously mentioned law professor, James Duane, esq. http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/faculty_staff/duane.cfm

Knee-jerk reaction from a knee-jerk reactionary Liberal:

Not my personal pick, but I think I'd be comfortable with him on the bench. I think he may be someone who not only will stick to the Constitution and keep his interpretations close enough to libertarian conservative to prevent things like the "Federal Marriage Act" and any future "Federal We're Finally Declaring a National Religion and It Ain't Yours Act" from becoming any form of reality, but he also strikes me as someone who may have actually read the Constitution.

So, yeah. Unless some really ugly stuff turns up (like him raping puppies or selling children for profit), I think I'll not be storming Washington with my rag-tag army of misfit poets just yet.

from what I hear, I like him. We'll see what happens.

I'm especially glad to hear #1

He seems alright to me so far. As a previous poster mentioned, he wrote his widely-publicized comments about abortion in a legal brief when he was representing the government. Regardless of his true stance on abortion, however, I like the idea of a judge who finds it his job to interpret the constitution and not "legislate from the bench", as Bush said last night. So for now, Roberts seems like a decent choice to me.

When it comes to public office, I'm just naturally lacking in trust for anyone who actually wants the job.

And it sounds like he's spent his entire adult life working toward this nomination, so I'm suspicious and skeptical.

But that's just me.

Although the tinfoil wearing conspiracy theorist in me sez:

He's a sleeper! He seems too good of a choice! He will end up eating the other 8 Justices and, thereby, absorpbing their power and will declare Karl Rove the undesputed Emporer of America at which point we will immediately declare war on "teh gays".

His name is good and his surname doesnt end with -ez like many people thougth would happen. ;)

He seems alright to me so far. As a previous poster mentioned, he wrote his widely-publicized comments about abortion in a legal brief when he was representing the government. Regardless of his true stance on abortion, however, I like the idea of a judge who finds it his job to interpret the constitution and not "legislate from the bench", as Bush said last night. So for now, Roberts seems like a decent choice to me.
Legislating from the bench occurs on both sides of the political line, the republicans just ignore anything in their favor and decry anything not made in their favor as judicial activism

Ihatevacations']Legislating from the bench occurs on both sides of the political line, the republicans just ignore anything in their favor and decry anything not made in their favor as judicial activism

i respectfully disagree.

i respectfully disagree.

Curious. Judge Roberts agreed during his confirmation hearings. He even gave examples of judicial activism on both sides.

i would like to know why 7 people dont like him! What reasos make you think that?? I voted yes because he sounds like a nice man and he has experiance

Curious. Judge Roberts agreed during his confirmation hearings. He even gave examples of judicial activism on both sides.

I actually wasn't disagreeing with the notion that some republican-appointed and/or conservative judges attempt to legislate from the bench. my disagreement was with the second part of the assertion. i should have been clearer.

Curious. Judge Roberts agreed during his confirmation hearings. He even gave examples of judicial activism on both sides.

actually, in fairness, i would say the same is true of some republicans for the second part of the assertion as well. :) now that i'm thinking about it, the only thing that i would probably have issue with is the absoluteness of the statement. is that fair?

i would like to know why 7 people dont like him! What reasos make you think that?? I voted yes because he sounds like a nice man and he has experiance
He is part of the Free Masons' conspiracy to take the country from the hands of the Commie Jew Liberal Illuminati.

i would like to know why 7 people dont like him! What reasos make you think that?? I voted yes because he sounds like a nice man and he has experiance

LOL. What experience?

His about 2 whole years on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?

The rest of his resume is impressive, but he has precious little experience as a judge.

I haven't made up my mind, but what I have seen so far is not pretty. And the choice of a nominee with little judicial record is disturbing.

LOL. What experience?

His about 2 whole years on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?

The rest of his resume is impressive, but he has precious little experience as a judge.

I haven't made up my mind, but what I have seen so far is not pretty. And the choice of a nominee with little judicial record is disturbing.

That's a reasonable assessment. (although I dissent with your assertion that what has thus far been seen is not pretty; Judge Roberts commands an exceptional level of respect as a legal mind and judge from both his liberal and conservative peers in the legal community).

Historically, the less time an appointee has spent on the bench, the more likely it is that the appointing president disapproves of how his nominee turns out. Even then, justices sometimes surprise their Presidents. In current history, for example, Souter (appointed by the first Bush) and Stevens (appointed by Ford) are among the most liberal justices on the high court.

From what I can tell, this guy had to be nominated 3 times before he was confirmed to his current position on the DC Circuit.

He was nominated by Bush the Elder, but rejected as too extreme.

He was nominated by Bush the Younger in 2001, but again rejected as too extreme.

He was then nominated again by Bush.

Am I wrong?

LOL. What experience?

His about 2 whole years on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?

The rest of his resume is impressive, but he has precious little experience as a judge.

I haven't made up my mind, but what I have seen so far is not pretty. And the choice of a nominee with little judicial record is disturbing.

I'm on the opposite side of the page. I think it'll be refreshing. He hasn't had the time to elevate himself to god-hood in his own mind yet.

From what I can tell, this guy had to be nominated 3 times before he was confirmed to his current position on the DC Circuit.

He was nominated by Bush the Elder, but rejected as too extreme.

He was nominated by Bush the Younger in 2001, but again rejected as too extreme.

He was then nominated again by Bush.

Am I wrong?

Somewhat. He wasn't rejected by the Senate, but his nomination was withheld from the Senate floor by the Senate judiciary committee for a full vote.

He was ultimately appointed to the DC Appellate Circuit by a full senate vote of 99-0. There was one absention vote by the Senate's President Pro Tem, a Republican, who historically does not vote except to break a tie.

So now it's my turn: if 99 out of 100 Senators consented to appoint Judge Roberts to the DC Appellate Circuit--traditionally thought of as the 2nd highest court in the land--why would they now see him unfit?

I'm on the opposite side of the page. I think it'll be refreshing. He hasn't had the time to elevate himself to god-hood in his own mind yet.

So you were a big fan of Chief Justice Earl Warren, then?

LOL. What experience?

His about 2 whole years on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?

The rest of his resume is impressive, but he has precious little experience as a judge.

I haven't made up my mind, but what I have seen so far is not pretty. And the choice of a nominee with little judicial record is disturbing.
Weelll bush did threaten to nominate someone with no bench experience.

Somewhat. He wasn't rejected by the Senate, but his nomination was withheld from the Senate floor by the Senate judiciary committee for a full vote.

He was ultimately appointed to the DC Appellate Circuit by a full senate vote of 99-0. There was one absention vote by the Senate's President Pro Tem, a Republican, who historically does not vote except to break a tie.

So now it's my turn: if 99 out of 100 Senators consented to appoint Judge Roberts to the DC Appellate Circuit--traditionally thought of as the 2nd highest court in the land--why would they now see him unfit?

The DC Circuit is not the 2nd highest court in the land. It is no higher than the other 12 circuits.

Saying someone is fit to be a Circuit Judge is obviously not the same as saying they are a good fit for a Supreme Court vacancy. A whole other set of criteria apply -- and a much higher standard.

So you were a big fan of Chief Justice Earl Warren, then?

Fan?
No. Not especially.

... A whole other set of criteria apply -- and a much higher standard.

That was the punchline, right?

Weelll bush did threaten to nominate someone with no bench experience.

The transition from attorney to judge is actually little. Attorneys perform the exact same legal analyses as judges. they also look at both sides of the issue, just as judges do. the difference is that attorneys present only one side of the argument.

But experience always helps.

The DC Circuit is not the 2nd highest court in the land. It is no higher than the other 12 circuits.

Saying someone is fit to be a Circuit Judge is obviously not the same as saying they are a good fit for a Supreme Court vacancy. A whole other set of criteria apply -- and a much higher standard.

1. Hi.

2. That's why I said it is "traditionally called" the second highest court in the land; i didn't say it was the second highest. The reason for this designation is that the D.C. court has jurisdiction over certain intellectual property matters and military matters that the other federal appellate courts don't--does that clear up your grievance?

3. I'm not sure that it's so obvious that it's not the same as an appellate court appointment. the job description of an appellate court judge is exactly the same as that of a supreme court justice--if Judge Roberts was competent to do this at the appellate level, why wouldn't he be competent to do the exact same job at the supreme court level?

4. The exact same set of criteria do apply. The same standard of scrutiny applies. The procedure and criteria for appointment of supreme court justices are spelled out in article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. I will personally give $1000 to the first person who demonstrate either that the responsibilities of appellate court judges and supreme court justices are different, or that the constitution or any constitutional law calls for a higher standard of scrutiny for the appointment of supreme court justices over appellate judges.

5. No offense, please. But it really sounds like you're getting your information from a bad source, and I think you should really consider how reliable it may be.

1. Hi.

2. That's why I said it is "traditionally called" the second highest court in the land; i didn't say it was the second highest. The reason for this designation is that the D.C. court has jurisdiction over certain intellectual property matters and military matters that the other federal appellate courts don't--does that clear up your grievance?

3. I'm not sure that it's so obvious that it's not the same as an appellate court appointment. the job description of an appellate court judge is exactly the same as that of a supreme court justice--if Judge Roberts was competent to do this at the appellate level, why wouldn't he be competent to do the exact same job at the supreme court level?

4. The exact same set of criteria do apply. The same standard of scrutiny applies. The procedure and criteria for appointment of supreme court justices are spelled out in article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. I will personally give $1000 to the first person who demonstrate either that the responsibilities of appellate court judges and supreme court justices are different, or that the constitution or any constitutional law calls for a higher standard of scrutiny for the appointment of supreme court justices over appellate judges.

5. No offense, please. But it really sounds like you're getting your information from a bad source, and I think you should really consider how reliable it may be.
4. Simple. Lower courts are bound to higher courts. The highest court makes precident. Lower court judges are generally forced to accept the precident of the supreme court, regardless if they personally believe otherwise. The supreme court has no such restriction, has no such overview panel.


Where's my 1000$?

4. Simple. Lower courts are bound to higher courts. The highest court makes precident. Lower court judges are generally forced to accept the precident of the supreme court, regardless if they personally believe otherwise. The supreme court has no such restriction, has no such overview panel.


Where's my 1000$?

The responsibility of setting precident falls to appellate courts as well--so that part is out. Specifically, appellate courts, and even trial courts, make precident setting cases all the time.

As for the remainder, make the case that the judge's job responsibilities are different. Come on... it's worth it for $1000, right? :)

This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but I'm now beginning to realize that people are going to fail to see the distinction between the responsibility of the judges and the authority of the courts they sit on.

The responsibility of setting precident falls to appellate courts as well--so that part is out.
Are you seriously suggesting that the precident of an appellate court is just as important as that of the supreme court?

Besides the fact that an appellate court can be overruled by the supreme court, the supreme court is pretty much the final word on setting precident and important decisions (think of how many appellate court decisions have become flashpoints in country...I can't think of any, and yet I can think of a bunch for the supreme court. Roe v Wade (lower court overturned), Texas v. Johnson, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, almost every first amendment issue). Claiming that the appellates are just as legally important as the supreme court is being intellectually dishonest.

Well, from the little information I've been able to find, I don't love the guy, but as long as he doesn't try to go about banning homosexual relationships, forcing religion into schools, or anything like that, then I'm rather indifferent. Bush could have make worse choices, and I didn't really expect anything much bettert.

Are you seriously suggesting that the precident of an appellate court is just as important as that of the supreme court?

Besides the fact that an appellate court can be overruled by the supreme court, the supreme court is pretty much the final word on setting precident and important decisions (think of how many appellate court decisions have become flashpoints in country...I can't think of any, and yet I can think of a bunch for the supreme court. Roe v Wade (lower court overturned), Texas v. Johnson, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, almost every first amendment issue). Claiming that the appellates are just as legally important as the supreme court is being intellectually dishonest.

No. However, literally thousands of legal precidents have been set by appellate courts other than the Supreme Court. In fact, the U.S. courts are still bound by some legal precidents set from when we were still a part of England. Ask any attorney, any law professor, any judge. --I'm serious; I do encourage it. No more will be written on this topic unless you pay my standard rate of $195/hour. :)

Well, from the little information I've been able to find, I don't love the guy, but as long as he doesn't try to go about banning homosexual relationships, forcing religion into schools, or anything like that, then I'm rather indifferent. Bush could have make worse choices, and I didn't really expect anything much bettert.

well put.

No. However, literally thousands of legal precidents have been set by appellate courts other than the Supreme Court. In fact, the U.S. courts are still bound by some legal precidents set from when we were still a part of England. Ask any attorney, any law professor, any judge. --I'm serious; I do encourage it. No more will be written on this topic unless you pay my standard rate of $195/hour. :)
And are still subject to being overturned by the supreme court. However, no court can overturn the supreme court but the supreme court. You asked why it is so vital that the vetting process is higher for justices on the supreme court, and it is exactly for that reason- in all the vital matters of law, they have the final word, and there is no appeal from them, their word is law (bad pun).

And are still subject to being overturned by the supreme court. However, no court can overturn the supreme court but the supreme court. You asked why it is so vital that the vetting process is higher for justices on the supreme court, and it is exactly for that reason- in all the vital matters of law, they have the final word, and there is no appeal from them, their word is law (bad pun).

I acknowledge and agree with the logic of your argument as to why a Supreme Court appointment should undergo maximum scrutiny.

That said, the U.S. appellate courts are really, REALLY important and powerful.--The U.S. Supreme Court only has enough time to take about 10% of the appeals sent to it, which means that they let about 90% of the appellate court decisions pass without even hearing them. Do you think that a Senator could responsibly give a thumbs up to someone for an appellate court seat without first scrutinizing them as much as possible?

And are still subject to being overturned by the supreme court. However, no court can overturn the supreme court but the supreme court. You asked why it is so vital that the vetting process is higher for justices on the supreme court, and it is exactly for that reason- in all the vital matters of law, they have the final word, and there is no appeal from them, their word is law (bad pun).

by the way, i love your pun. :-D

The transition from attorney to judge is actually little. Attorneys perform the exact same legal analyses as judges. they also look at both sides of the issue, just as judges do. the difference is that attorneys present only one side of the argument.

But experience always helps.

Come now.

The analysis from the other side of the bench is significantly different from that of an attorney.

It is even more different from the Supreme Court.

That is not to say that those without judicial experience cannot make create Justices.

5. No offense, please. But it really sounds like you're getting your information from a bad source, and I think you should really consider how reliable it may be.

No. However, literally thousands of legal precidents have been set by appellate courts other than the Supreme Court. In fact, the U.S. courts are still bound by some legal precidents set from when we were still a part of England. Ask any attorney, any law professor, any judge. --I'm serious; I do encourage it. No more will be written on this topic unless you pay my standard rate of $195/hour. :)

My law school makes us smug, doesn't it?

I suggest you not assume that those that disagree with your assessment of the relative role of the Supreme Court and US Courts of Appeal are ignorant.

It might just be some of us have gone to law school as well. Some of us may have even clerked for a US Court of Appeal.

EDIT: I am not claiming special knowledge or authority. I am not saying my opinion is worth one iota more than anyone else's opinion. I am saying that you should not claim special knowledge or authority either. There are plenty of people on here that are extremely well-informed about the judiciary that have not a day of legal education. Legal training does not give you an exclusive key to a Chamber of Secrets.

EDIT2: I had intended to include the above in my original post, but I was kicked off my computer temporarily.

Come now.

The analysis from the other side of the bench is significantly different from that of an attorney.

It is even more different from the Supreme Court.

That is not to say that those without judicial experience cannot make create Justices.


I respectfully disagree.

My law school makes us smug, doesn't it?

I suggest you not assume that those that disagree with your assessment of the relative role of the Supreme Court and US Courts of Appeal are ignorant.

It might just be some of us have gone to law school as well. Some of us may have even clerked for a US Court of Appeal.

My intent is to not be smug. I apologize if the content of my communications were written in a way that was interpreted to be condescending.

You're definitely not stupid. But I don't believe that anyone who is in disagreement with me on this specific matter would have a full legal education.

BTW, if some of us HAVE clerked for a US Court of Appeals... could you guys get me a job? :) It's darn hard to get a clerkship on one of those things.

I respectfully disagree.

<sigh>

Many judges have said so in autobiographies.

Part of skill in advocacy is understanding that the judge comes at a case from a different viewpoint with a different goal and method. It is taught in any decent advocacy text.

Obviously judges and lawyers use many of the same skills, but the difference in perspective and approach is vast. As a judge, you are not an advocate. Nor are you simply a scholar. You must come to the best outcome in every decision.

Aarrghh. There really isn't a way to convince you. :headbang:

My intent is to not be smug. I apologize if the content of my communications were written in a way that was interpreted to be condescending.

You're definitely not stupid. But I don't believe that anyone who is in disagreement with me on this specific matter would have a full legal education.

BTW, if some of us HAVE clerked for a US Court of Appeals... could you guys get me a job? :) It's darn hard to get a clerkship on one of those things.

Grrr. Even when apologizing for being condescending, you are condescending.

Look. You are making some very arrogant assumptions.

Only because you are making such a big deal out of alleged credentials: I have a law degree. I have been in practice for about 8 years. I did clerk for a judge on a US Court of Appeals (and externed for another).

And, no, I can't help you get a clerkship. You should know how the application process works.

I do believe I must agree with Cat on this issue.

As I see it, a trial lawyer approaches a case with only one issue in mind: A win for his client. A trial court judge approaches the same case with 2 issues in mind: What is the "proper" outcome and how will my rulings stand on appeal. An Intermediate Appeals court judge approaches the same case with the issues of: Am I "obeying" precedent and did the trial judge do so and finally, the SCOTUS will approach the same case with the issue of: Will the precedent I create with my ruling alter the legal landscape in a fashion that is detrimental to the nation's governance as a whole and is the precedence "proper" as I interpret the Constitution. Finally, in an effort to reach his goal, a trial lawyer will throw out everything, including contradictory theories, while Appellant court judges of all stripes work exceptionally hard to ensure consistency in everything.

While very broad and subject to variances and nuance on a case-by-case basis, this is how I see it and clearly, the different focus and concerns by the different types of judges affects the manner in which they analyze a case and determine what the outcome should be.

OH, and no, I can't get you a job as a clerk either, do it the hard way like Cat and I did - earn it!