NationStates Jolt Archive

So far John Roberts looks like a good conservative judge. Just what the Supreme Court needs more of.

What skeleton is he hiding?

So far John Roberts looks like a good conservative judge. Just what the Supreme Court needs more of.

What skeleton is he hiding?

Are you making a reference to the fact that He's a Puppet of the Pope? That his own wife calls him PP in private because of it. :eek:

I don't have a problem with that myself, him being practicing catholic and me being a fundy (by the definition around here anyway), but some of the far left groups around are going to freak :p

Are you making a reference to the fact that He's a Puppet of the Pope? That his own wife calls him PP in private because of it. :eek:

I don't have a problem with that myself, him being practicing catholic and me being a fundy (by the definition around here anyway), but some of the far left groups around are going to freak :p
well is he a puppet of the pope himself or of John Paul II, cuz if its the pope himself, we're screwed, the german bulldog is a fundy catholic

Well the fact that he is against a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body is very concerning. He was quoted in 1990 as saying that Roe vs. Wade should be over-turned.

Can you just imagine all the death and disease that will be spread if that happens? To think of girls/women having to get back street alley abortions sends a chill up my spine. How irresponsible of SCOTUS if they over-turn this very important human right.

I suppose Americans that live closer to Canada will always be able to come to Canada to get a safe abortion... but sure doesn't say a lot about the state of freedom in The United States if it is over-turned.

What will be next?

Beats me, I heard him described on CNN (by someone not on his side) as a Devote Catholic... and then, by someone else (more neutral) as a practicing Catholic.

I was just making fun of what is going to be said about him during the next couple of months.

How can a fifty year old catholic guy have kids that look like they are less that 6 years old? Anybody know?

(I honestly don't have a problem with this guy, again, you know, being a fundy and all :p , but I'm surprised how little is being said about him in this forum at all so far).

What I heard is he said Roe v Wade had no Constitutional leg to stand on; however, he said (or bsed possibly) to some committee in defense of himself that Roe v Wade is precedent and he would uphold it, but then again as Supreme Court Justice he can overturn it which he couldnt in his previous post

Well the fact that he is against a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body is very concerning. He was quoted in 1990 as saying that Roe vs. Wade should be over-turned.

Can you just imagine all the death and disease that will be spread if that happens? To think of girls/women having to get back street alley abortions sends a chill up my spine. How irresponsible of SCOTUS if they over-turn this very important human right.

I suppose Americans that live closer to Canada will always be able to come to Canada to get a safe abortion... but sure doesn't say a lot about the state of freedom in The United States if it is over-turned.

What will be next?

I'd like to see it become a state-decided issue so Massachusetts can quickly legalize it and we can get into a big brouhaha over state's rights in this country and see where the small-government, state's-rights Republicans really stand.

So far John Roberts looks like a good conservative judge. Just what the Supreme Court needs more of.

What skeleton is he hiding?

Is is a sad thing that we cannot but suspect foul play somewhere in this? I would be surprised if an actual conservative, well balanced judge has been nominated here...but deep down I really feel I shouldn't be.

The Bush administration has obviously done a lot for my parinoia of government handling of power. I honestly hope he's just what he looks like right now. It would do a lot for my faith in humanity.

*snipped - everyone dies trying to get an abortion post*

What will be next?

Actually, even if Roe v. Wade did go under, it would go under as not good law, it wouldn't intantly make abortion illegal, it would only put the matter back into the hands of the state legislatures. Each state would be able to make up their own minds about it.

but I'm surprised how little is being said about him in this forum at all so far.

I believe it's mostly because Bush picked someone with a real short record. He was only on the court of appeals for 2 years. Hard to question him on his record when he doesn't really have one.

Shouldn't those guys be neutral?

Actually, even if Roe v. Wade did go under, it would go under as not good law, it wouldn't intantly make abortion illegal, it would only put the matter back into the hands of the state legislatures. Each state would be able to make up their own minds about it.

Unless the right-wing tried to ban abortion federally, like with the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban.

Otherwise, you are correct that it would leave the question to the states.

Like states should be able to do with banning the Catholic Church or establishing segregation ....

;)

Shouldn't those guys be neutral?

Which guys?

Neutral on what?

Sorry, but I don't understand your question/point.

Shouldn't those guys be neutral?

In theory, yes, in application and or reality, of course not. Even judges are human and will have their own personal bias depending on their belief systems. I suppose in a perfect world only confirmed moderates would be allowed to be appointed. But alas, we don't live in a perfect world.

Shouldn't those guys be neutral?

No, they should represent the political leanings of whomever is lucky enough to be in charge when an opening in the SCOTUS comes up. That's the American way.

Unless the right-wing tried to ban abortion federally, like with the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban.

Otherwise, you are correct that it would leave the question to the states.

Like states should be able to do with banning the Catholic Church or establishing segregation ....

;)

You're absolutely right about that, but I didn't want to scare the little ones with scary stories.

But yes, they might define viability as 2 weeks or something :eek:

No, they should represent the political leanings of whomever is lucky enough to be in charge when an opening in the SCOTUS comes up. That's the American way.

Now THAT's the spirit, tighten the old belt and suck it up. :D

Are you making a reference to the fact that He's a Puppet of the Pope? That his own wife calls him PP in private because of it. :eek:

I don't have a problem with that myself, him being practicing catholic and me being a fundy (by the definition around here anyway), but some of the far left groups around are going to freak :p

Already Have.... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433157 :D

Now THAT's the spirit, tighten the old belt and suck it up. :D

Whatever. Gay marriage and abortions and all that ebil stuff will still be legal up here.

I'd like to see it become a state-decided issue so Massachusetts can quickly legalize it and we can get into a big brouhaha over state's rights in this country and see where the small-government, state's-rights Republicans really stand.
There are still some of those left?@!?

Interesting how quickly this thread turned into a almost single issue (abortion) thread. I would like to hope that there are other issues, property rights, religious freedom/seperation of church and state, states rights, willingness to up hold the law rather than legislate from the bench, etc. that would also be of some import in making a decision about whether or not he's a good candidate.

Interesting how quickly this thread turned into a almost single issue (abortion) thread. I would like to hope that there are other issues, property rights, religious freedom/seperation of church and state, states rights, willingness to up hold the law rather than legislate from the bench, etc. that would also be of some import in making a decision about whether or not he's a good candidate.
Do show me a case of a court legislating from the bench please?

Interesting how quickly this thread turned into a almost single issue (abortion) thread. I would like to hope that there are other issues, property rights, religious freedom/seperation of church and state, states rights, willingness to up hold the law rather than legislate from the bench, etc. that would also be of some import in making a decision about whether or not he's a good candidate.
Exactly what I've seen. I spent my lunch hour and a half at the pistol range and I was quite surprised to find the only objection was over abortion. Maybe that's all that's been published on MoveOn.org so far.

I recall reading one article reviewing his Appeals confirmation. Roberts was quoted as saying Roe v. Wade was the law of the land and he didn't think his personal opinion on the matter would affect his rulings. Hopefully, he will apply that same standard to the Constitution.

Interesting how quickly this thread turned into a almost single issue (abortion) thread. I would like to hope that there are other issues, property rights, religious freedom/seperation of church and state, states rights, willingness to up hold the law rather than legislate from the bench, etc. that would also be of some import in making a decision about whether or not he's a good candidate.

Well anyone interested can go to the DC circuit court site itself and scan over some of Judge John G. Roberts opinions. There is a section you would have to pay for but there is also a section which list all opinions and is free.

The site : www.cadc.uscourts.gov

Become more informed. It makes things ever so much more interesting :)

Interesting how quickly this thread turned into a almost single issue (abortion) thread. I would like to hope that there are other issues, property rights, religious freedom/seperation of church and state, states rights, willingness to up hold the law rather than legislate from the bench, etc. that would also be of some import in making a decision about whether or not he's a good candidate.

Meh.

1. You mischaracterize the thread. Abortion was raised, but his general viewpoint has been raised as well.

2. Abortion is particularly relevant. Unlike most of those other "issues" you raise, abortion jurisprudence is an actual issue before the Court that could be changed by a Justice with a different viewpoint than O'Connor. Thus it is important and legitimate focal point for both the right and the left.

3. Listing a set of your pet "issues" doesn't make you superior to those who raised one legitimate issue.

Meh.

1. You mischaracterize the thread. Abortion was raised, but his general viewpoint has been raised as well.

2. Abortion is particularly relevant. Unlike most of those other "issues" you raise, abortion jurisprudence is an actual issue before the Court that could be changed by a Justice with a different viewpoint than O'Connor. Thus it is important and legitimate focal point for both the right and the left.

3. Listing a set of your pet "issues" doesn't make you superior to those who raised one legitimate issue.

I didn't say abortion wasn't a legitmate issue, just that it is not the only one, but it seems to be dominating conversation so far.

Incidentally, those aren't my "pet" issues and abortion would fall into my "pet" issues list if I made one. I was just listing the other issues I thought of off the top of my head. To be honest, I'm far less interested in a judge's personal opinions on issues than his/her opinion on how one goes about interpreting law. I vastly prefer a strict constructionist who does his/her best to stick to the original intent of the Law makers and allows legislators to deal with new issues.

We should be able to elect the judges for the highest court in the land and there should be term limits.

Do show me a case of a court legislating from the bench please?

Look up Priscilla Owens and her treatment of the parental notification statute in Texas. She essentially rewrote the law in her cases to make the exceptions completely useless to young girls.

We should be able to elect the judges for the highest court in the land and there should be term limits.

That would essentially eliminate ruling according to the law and leave the country in a chaos of pandering in the form of rulings to special interest groups that elect, pay for campaigns of judges. It would be even more of a problem than our current issues with the legislative and administrative branches of the government.

Do show me a case of a court legislating from the bench please?

1: Texas’ anti-sodomy law. The court upheld the constitutionality of a similar state law in a 1986 Georgia case. The court went looking for the opportunity to amend or repeal it’s the 1986 decision. In the first decision, the court held that the right to privacy did not include a right to engage in homosexual sex, then in the second it said it did.

2: The court imposed its own political opinion on the abortion decision overturning state statutes and mandating abortion across the land. The people acting through their elected representatives in their respective States had every right to craft policies aimed at regulating behaviors that they believed adversely impacted public health and public morality before that ruling. It affectively legislated what is human, what is a citizen and when rights are established on a person, and when they cannot be granted on a person that had previously been granted such rights by some State Legislatures.

We should be able to elect the judges for the highest court in the land and there should be term limits.

I think you forget WHY we have judges that are NOT susceptible to the whims of political popularity. Instead of needing to be popular, they can rule in favor or what is the Law and not worry that they can be threatened with losing their jobs if so-and-so doesn’t like how they rule on a case to case basis.

We should be able to elect the judges for the highest court in the land and there should be term limits.

That would remove the priority that justices interpret the law, regardless of majority opinion. The majority of people may want to oppress minorities - but that doesn't make it legal. However, if justices were elected and had term limits - then justices would be beholden to the voters - and would thus most likely ignore the law in favor of keeping their elections.

There are very good reasons that justices were removed from the electoral process - their purpose is not to be beholden to the people, but to the law.

We should be able to elect the judges for the highest court in the land and there should be term limits.

I understand your reasoning but it would circumvent the thought process behind lifetime appointments. It is part of the check and balances to not let one branch of the government to have too much sway over the other. Judges are less likely to be owned by either president and or legislature because of the lifetime appointment. Once they are in they are golden :).

Well the fact that he is against a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body is very concerning. He was quoted in 1990 as saying that Roe vs. Wade should be over-turned.

Can you just imagine all the death and disease that will be spread if that happens? To think of girls/women having to get back street alley abortions sends a chill up my spine. How irresponsible of SCOTUS if they over-turn this very important human right.

I suppose Americans that live closer to Canada will always be able to come to Canada to get a safe abortion... but sure doesn't say a lot about the state of freedom in The United States if it is over-turned.

What will be next?



Let's stop playing the semantics game and call it what it really is: A woman's right to kill her child. One of the supposed "human rights" that infringes upon other human's rights :rolleyes:

Let's stop playing the semantics game and call it what it really is: A woman's right to kill her child. One of the supposed "human rights" that infringes upon other human's rights :rolleyes:

Speaking of semantics. :rolleyes:

It is the right to control one's own body. Self-ownership, medical autonomy, privacy, etc.

This constitutional right and human right does not infringe on the rights of any person except in extreme cases -- in which case the woman has priority to use of her own body and life.

Nonetheless, I await PR's scolding you for discussing abortion.

Speaking of semantics. :rolleyes:

It is the right to control one's own body. Self-ownership, medical autonomy, privacy, etc.

This constitutional right and human right does not infringe on the rights of any person except in extreme cases -- in which case the woman has priority to use of her own body and life.

Nonetheless, I await PR's scolding you for discussing abortion.



An action which infringes upon the rights of others is not a right itself, no if's, and's, or but's.

Just to set the record "straight" on what John Roberts has said re: abortion:



Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) and Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993)

Roberts has a record of hostility to women’s reproductive freedom and has sought to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1990, for example, Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored a brief for the government in Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). Rust concerned the so-called “gag rule” that prohibited federally funded family planning clinics from discussing the option of abortion with patients, and did not directly concern the validity of Roe itself. Nonetheless, Roberts argued that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled . . . [T]he Court’s conclusion[] in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion . . . find[s] no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”2

Also as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of the government in support of the radical anti-choice group Operation Rescue and six individuals who had obstructed access to reproductive health care clinics. The government was not a party in the case and need not have filed a brief. The case, Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), was brought by clinics that perform abortions and organizations supporting reproductive choice for women, asserting that Operation Rescue and the individual defendants had violated a federal civil rights statute by conspiring to deprive women of their right to interstate travel. This claim required a showing of a “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus” on the part of the conspirators.” 506 U.S. at 268. Roberts’s brief in Bray contended that the protesters’ conduct did not constitute discrimination against women, “even though only women can have abortions."3 The Court majority held that the requisite showing of discriminatory animus had not been made in the case. Soon after Bray was decided, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to protect women and health care providers from harassment and violence.

Look up Priscilla Owens and her treatment of the parental notification statute in Texas. She essentially rewrote the law in her cases to make the exceptions completely useless to young girls.
A citation, please.

Let's stop playing the semantics game and call it what it really is: A woman's right to kill her child. One of the supposed "human rights" that infringes upon other human's rights :rolleyes:
Now THAT is semantics. It is entirely opinion. Now, I may be wrong, but Roe v Wade was more about the right to privacy than anything else. It is not the government's repsonsibility or given right to tell people what they can or can't do to themselves, same thing with Lawrence v Texas. The government should not be able to regulate what a person decides to do to themselves. And you also make the assertion an unborn baby, of any age, is a human and has its own rights, well I don't know where you have been but children's rights run through the parents, they do not have equal rights. It is the mothers right, as a private individual, to terminate her pregnancy within reason

Let's stop playing the semantics game and call it what it really is: A woman's right to kill her child. One of the supposed "human rights" that infringes upon other human's rights :rolleyes:


Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame. ;) :p I agree with your opinion on this subject, but aren't there any other issues that are germaine to this subject.

An action which infringes upon the rights of others is not a right itself, no if's, and's, or but's.

Start another thread and I'd love to explain why you are wrong.

An action which infringes upon the rights of others is not a right itself, no if's, and's, or but's.
Prenatal life is not human life. If it isn't human life, it has no rights. That is the position of the government, up until around the third trimester, which is when things get a bit hairy for abortions anyway (no doctor in their right minds would allow a non-medical abortion at that stage).

Ihatevacations']Now THAT is semantics. It is entirely opinion. Now, I may be wrong, but Roe v Wade was more about the right to privacy than anything else. It is not the government's repsonsibility or given right to tell people what they can or can't do to themselves, same thing with Lawrence v Texas. The government should not be able to regulate what a person decides to do to themselves. And you also make the assertion an unborn baby, of any age, is a human and has its own rights, well I don't know where you have been but children's rights run through the parents, they do not have equal rights. It is the mothers right, as a private individual, to terminate her pregnancy within reason



Following that logic, we can legalize parental murder of children. This law is barbaric and needs to be overturned SOON. You know the world is messed up when a person has a "right" to kill another person for inhabiting her body.

Following that logic, we can legalize parental murder of children. This law is barbaric and needs to be overturned SOON. You know the world is messed up when a person has a "right" to kill another person for inhabiting her body.
I'm sorry, you obviously didn't follow my logic. An unborn child is not a "person," it can be argued it is human, but a person, that is extreme opinion and there is no point in arguing with an extremist.

Ihatevacations']I'm sorry, you obviously didn't follow my logic. An unborn child is not a "person," it can be argued it is human, but a person, that is extreme opinion and there is no point in arguing with an extremist.




Funny, I thought the extremist would be the one who embraces the genocide of those he deems "non-human". Oh well, thanks for clearing that up :rolleyes:

So much for my feeble attempt to keep this thread from digressing into pro life v. pro abortion thread 1000. :rolleyes:

Funny, I thought the extremist would be the one who embraces the genocide of those he deems "non-human". Oh well, thanks for clearing that up :rolleyes:

Lemme get this straight, you are equating him with a terrorist because he has a different view to you? Genocide is the systematic killing of a certain race. Extremism is taking any view to it's extreme conclusion which is just what you did.

Following that logic, we can legalize parental murder of children. This law is barbaric and needs to be overturned SOON. You know the world is messed up when a person has a "right" to kill another person for inhabiting her body.
She doesn't. She has a right to kill a mass of cells living inside her body. The government does not, at the early stages of pregnancy, have the compelling interest needed to override the right to privacy. However, when the fetus becomes human (or close enough), the state does. That's how restrictions on abortion come into play.

Funny, I thought the extremist would be the one who embraces the genocide of those he deems "non-human". Oh well, thanks for clearing that up :rolleyes:
Why prove my point when you people do it for me?

That would remove the priority that justices interpret the law, regardless of majority opinion. The majority of people may want to oppress minorities - but that doesn't make it legal. However, if justices were elected and had term limits - then justices would be beholden to the voters - and would thus most likely ignore the law in favor of keeping their elections.

There are very good reasons that justices were removed from the electoral process - their purpose is not to be beholden to the people, but to the law.

Bare with me because I have little knowledge of this process. They are essentially elected in by whatever party in the majority confirms them anyway aren't they? They are also nominated by one party or another too right? So it would seem that they are nominated according to their bias. I guess it just seems bad because the conservatives are controlling everything and if a bunch of conservatives are ruling the highest court then there is no balance. I don't want a bunch of extreme liberal judges up there either.

In theory, yes, in application and or reality, of course not. Even judges are human and will have their own personal bias depending on their belief systems. I suppose in a perfect world only confirmed moderates would be allowed to be appointed. But alas, we don't live in a perfect world.
But even that is a subjective measure. If I'm out on the fringes of either side, a moderate is going to be on my side of center.

Elections have consequences and the ability to appoint is one of the privileges of the victor. The best we can ask for is a justice that will uphold the Constitution as the law of the land that it is. Even that hope gets us into trouble.

Bare with me because I have little knowledge of this process. They are essentially elected in by whatever party in the majority confirms them anyway aren't they? They are also nominated by one party or another too right? So it would seem that they are nominated according to their bias. I guess it just seems bad because the conservatives are controlling everything and if a bunch of conservatives are ruling the highest court then there is no balance. I don't want a bunch of extreme liberal judges up there either.
Agreed, elected or appointed, it is their own personal choice whether or not to be biased

Bare with me because I have little knowledge of this process. They are essentially elected in by whatever party in the majority confirms them anyway aren't they? They are also nominated by one party or another too right? So it would seem that they are nominated according to their bias. I guess it just seems bad because the conservatives are controlling everything and if a bunch of conservatives are ruling the highest court then there is no balance. I don't want a bunch of extreme liberal judges up there either.

For someone to become a Justice, they must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

So, whichever party controls the Presidency controls who is nominated.

Control of the Senate tends to control who is confirmed.

The President's choice is mitigated by political concerns and chance of confirmation.

Even when the same party controls the Senate, confirmation is still mitigated by numerous factors. One is the hearings themselves and things that may berevealed. Filibuster is a factor. Senators also tend to be rather independent -- particularly on issues like Supreme Court nominees.

Additionally, the fact that Justices are life appointees makes them more independent when they get on the bench. They aren't politically beholden (as well as I think the majesty of the office tempers some).

Thus, direct election would be a totally different prospect than the tempering process of checks and balances.

So much for my feeble attempt to keep this thread from digressing into pro life v. pro abortion thread 1000. :rolleyes:

Blame Neo Rogolia. You'd done a good job at stopping it until she barrelled into the thread full bore.

Filibuster is a factor.Well, it didn't used to be...

Ihatevacations']Agreed, elected or appointed, it is their own personal choice whether or not to be biased

It's not a choice, it is just a reality. All humans are, by default, biased. That's why I'm not nearly as concerned with what a Justices personal leaning are as to how he/she approaches the law. If they are willing to bend the law to suit their personal leanings, they have no business being judges. If they stick to the constructs of the law and the original intent of those who created the law as closely as possible, then they get a pass from me.

Well, it didn't used to be...

Not true.

Blame Neo Rogolia. You'd done a good job at stopping it until she barrelled into the thread full bore.

It takes at least two, someone had to respond to her.

A citation, please.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/Owen2005final.pdf

Section D outlines the particular cases - and Gonzales' description of the dissenters in this case as "judicial activists" fairly well.

Not true.

It just used to be less of an issue when it came to nominations. It is becoming progressively more problematic.

Not true.
Really? What Supreme Court nominee was filibustered in the Senate?

Okay, let's try something new.

Roberts donated money to Richard Lugar's campaign for re-election. Lugar will have a chance, along with every other Senator to confirm or reject Roberts nomination. Does it matter? Should Lugar disqualify himself?

Personally, I don't think it matters in the least. Only reason I bring it up is because the AP just released the story.

That, and I'd like to read about something besides the same old arguments on abortion. If you're going to make them, how about at least tying it to Roberts nomination.

Bare with me because I have little knowledge of this process. They are essentially elected in by whatever party in the majority confirms them anyway aren't they? They are also nominated by one party or another too right? So it would seem that they are nominated according to their bias. I guess it just seems bad because the conservatives are controlling everything and if a bunch of conservatives are ruling the highest court then there is no balance. I don't want a bunch of extreme liberal judges up there either.

They are nominated according to a perceived bias - which is a gross misuse of the system - but can't be avoided when we have people in office like we have now.

However, once in the position - they cannot be controlled by any party. What biases they have will affect their decisions. However, if they are good judges, you won't actually be able to tell what their personal biases are - only that they are interpreting the law. Many justices have been nominated by a conservative/liberal administration only to surprise everyone - including those that nominated them - by making unexpected decisions. Why? Because they aren't in a position to be controlled by their party anymore - they are now only beholden to the law.

Meanwhile, most of the justices (in SCOTUS anyways) can't really be said to be along party lines. You can see elements of a more traditional conservative/liberal split - but those lines are not necessarily the same ones that current parties draw. Thus the fact that all of the justices have pissed off members of both sides with their decisions.

Really? What Supreme Court nominee was filibustered in the Senate?

Abe Fortas's appointment to be Chief Justice in 1968.

October 1, 1968 - Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm)

Also, the threat of fillibuster has played a factor even when a filibuster has never actually occurred.

For someone to become a Justice, they must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

So, whichever party controls the Presidency controls who is nominated.

Control of the Senate tends to control who is confirmed.

The President's choice is mitigated by political concerns and chance of confirmation.

Even when the same party controls the Senate, confirmation is still mitigated by numerous factors. One is the hearings themselves and things that may berevealed. Filibuster is a factor. Senators also tend to be rather independent -- particularly on issues like Supreme Court nominees.

Additionally, the fact that Justices are life appointees makes them more independent when they get on the bench. They aren't politically beholden (as well as I think the majesty of the office tempers some).

Thus, direct election would be a totally different prospect than the tempering process of checks and balances.


Thank you

I can see how elections and term limits might not be such a great idea either. But it still seems like the balance is not kept when one party controls it all. Also, judges are prone to bribery but I guess no matter who elects them that will always be the case eh?


I think the filibuster shoulg be kept in place because there should only be judges that both sides can agree with confirming.

Thank you

I can see how elections and term limits might not be such a great idea either. But it still seems like the balance is not kept when one party controls it all. Also, judges are prone to bribery but I guess no matter who elects them that will always be the case eh?


I think the filibuster shoulg be kept in place because there should only be judges that both sides can agree with confirming.

Justice can be impeached. That would be the appropriate remedy for bribery.

Okay, let's try something new.

Roberts donated money to Richard Lugar's campaign for re-election. Lugar will have a chance, along with every other Senator to confirm or reject Roberts nomination. Does it matter? Should Lugar disqualify himself?

Personally, I don't think it matters in the least. Only reason I bring it up is because the AP just released the story.

That, and I'd like to read about something besides the same old arguments on abortion. If you're going to make them, how about at least tying it to Roberts nomination.

I agree, I don't think it really matters. Politicians are going to vote favor what ever is most likely to get them re-elected and Roberts making the supreme court has little to do with Lugar's next election.

Roberts donated money to Richard Lugar's campaign for re-election. Lugar will have a chance, along with every other Senator to confirm or reject Roberts nomination. Does it matter? Should Lugar disqualify himself?

Personally, I don't think it matters in the least. Only reason I bring it up is because the AP just released the story.

Yes, he should remove himself from the voting.

Whether he would let that swing his vote or not - even the appearance of impropriety should be avoided.

Okay, let's try something new.

Roberts donated money to Richard Lugar's campaign for re-election. Lugar will have a chance, along with every other Senator to confirm or reject Roberts nomination. Does it matter? Should Lugar disqualify himself?

Personally, I don't think it matters in the least. Only reason I bring it up is because the AP just released the story.

That, and I'd like to read about something besides the same old arguments on abortion. If you're going to make them, how about at least tying it to Roberts nomination.
Since Roberts had no way of knowing that (A) a Supreme was to vacate and (B) that he would get the nod, there could be no quid-pro-quo. Lugar has no reason to abstain.

Okay, let's try something new.

Roberts donated money to Richard Lugar's campaign for re-election. Lugar will have a chance, along with every other Senator to confirm or reject Roberts nomination. Does it matter? Should Lugar disqualify himself?

Personally, I don't think it matters in the least. Only reason I bring it up is because the AP just released the story.

That, and I'd like to read about something besides the same old arguments on abortion. If you're going to make them, how about at least tying it to Roberts nomination.

Although I am leary of Roberts (and need to learn more about him), I do not think this is a significant factor.

No Lugar need not recuse himself.

Justice can be impeached. That would be the appropriate remedy for bribery.


Oh well thats good then

Abe Fortas's appointment to be Chief Justice in 1968.

October 1, 1968 - Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm)

Also, the threat of fillibuster has played a factor even when a filibuster has never actually occurred.
You have to admit that there is a rather large difference between a filibuster of Roberts and the filibuster of Fortas.

Considering the fact that Fortas was already on the court. The filibuster was to stop his promotion to Chief Justice, not to stop a vote on if he should sit on the court at all.

The motivation was also different:
As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support.
Looks like the reasons for a filibuster were based on confidentiality issues and potential conflict of interest. I would consider this a little different then a filibuster on ideological grounds.

Wow, it hasn't even been 24 Hrs since John Roberts nomination and I've already heard the inevitable "Bork" comparison from the usual suspects on the left.

Silly lefties, The President outfoxed you again and you go running back to that tired old playbook.

Abe Fortas's appointment to be Chief Justice in 1968.

October 1, 1968 - Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Court_Appointment.htm)

Also, the threat of fillibuster has played a factor even when a filibuster has never actually occurred.
It's splitting hairs, since the result is similar, but when I think of a filibuster, it's the Strom Thurmond type of monologue. Cloture votes are sort of a filibuster-lite approach to delays.

Wow, it hasn't even been 24 Hrs since John Roberts nomination and I've already heard the inevitable "Bork" comparison from the usual suspects on the left.

Silly lefties, The President outfoxed you again and you go running back to that tired old playbook.
Cool, I see you speak "puppet language"

You have to admit that there is a rather large difference between a filibuster of Roberts and the filibuster of Fortas.

Considering the fact that Fortas was already on the court. The filibuster was to stop his promotion to Chief Justice, not to stop a vote on if he should sit on the court at all.

The motivation was also different:

Looks like the reasons for a filibuster were based on confidentiality issues and potential conflict of interest. I would consider this a little different then a filibuster on ideological grounds.

Well, there hasn't been a filibuster of Roberts. ;)

But I never said nor implied the situations were particularly similar. It is a fact, however, that Supreme Court nominations have been filibustered before.

Although there were other reasons highlighted in the official Senate version, let us be clear that ideology was a major basis for the opposition to and filibuster of Fortas's nomination.

My point stands that it is not true that filibuster has only recently played a role in Supreme Court nominations. And filibusters of other nominees to other courts have a long history.

We would have to do some serious digging to look further back, but the threat of filibuster has played a role in more recent Supreme Court nominations on several occassions.

To say that filibuster has not played a factor is deceptive. One would have to consider how many times there has been a Supreme Court vacancy when the same party controlled the Presidency and a majority in the Senate. Otherwise, filibuster wouldn't be necessary. Even then, the question would be whether party division/loyalty was such that the President -- absent a filibuster -- could be assured a nominee would be confirmed. Then the question is whether someone was nominated that was so objectionable to the minority that they felt the need to filibuster. How many times has that happened? At least once before.

It's splitting hairs, since the result is similar, but when I think of a filibuster, it's the Strom Thurmond type of monologue. Cloture votes are sort of a filibuster-lite approach to delays.

Cloture is a vote to end a filibuster.

The filibuster of the Fortas nomination was a "real" Thurmond-type of filibuster. In fact, I think Thurmond was one of the filibusterers. ;)

On the merits of Roberts, here is a link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19268) to the People for American Way's preliminary report on Judge Roberts.

Obviously groups are scrambling to get information on a guy with no real judicial record.

I recognize PFAW's liberal bias. I would welcome similar links from conservative or other groups.

Cloture is a vote to end a filibuster.

The filibuster of the Fortas nomination was a "real" Thurmond-type of filibuster. In fact, I think Thurmond was one of the filibusterers. ;)
I thought cloture was to end debate. That would also end a filibuster, of course.

Thurmond really "shined" in his 24 hour record-setting filibuster to delay the Civil Rights Act.

I posted this same thing last night.

What is a Solicitor General?

The Solicitor General and the other attorneys in that office represent the Federal Government before the courts (primarily the Appellate and Supreme).

His personal opinion is IRRELEVANT. When he wrote that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned because that was the position of Bush 41 administration, NOT HIS PERSONAL OPINION. The Government is his client and he has a duty to represent the government how they want him to.

I posted this same thing last night.

What is a Solicitor General?

The Solicitor General and the other attorneys in that office represent the Federal Government before the courts (primarily the Appellate and Supreme).

His personal opinion is IRRELEVANT. When he wrote that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned because that was the position of Bush 41 administration, NOT HIS PERSONAL OPINION. The Government is his client and he has a duty to represent the government how they want him to.

1. Did you copy this from somewhere? Doesn't effect the validity, it just appears to be a talking point.

2. Yes and no. The Solicitor General's office helps the administration decide what position to take. They don't merely take orders from the White House. Moreover, one does not take the job that Roberts held without knowing and wanting to advocate certain positions on behalf of the administration. Also, the Solicitor General's office has significant leeway in particular arguments that it makes. Thus, critics have focused on a pattern of advocacy on one side of issues and of certain arguments.

On the other hand, you are correct that the Solicitor General's office acts as an advocate for the administration and Robert may well have advocated views that were not his own.

3. Unfortunately, we have to look at things like Robert's record in the Solicitor General's office and in private practice because he has so little public record as a judge. This is part of an unfortunate trend toward "stealth" nominees with little paper trail.

On the merits of Roberts, here is a link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19268) to the People for American Way's preliminary report on Judge Roberts.

Obviously groups are scrambling to get information on a guy with no real judicial record.

I recognize PFAW's liberal bias. I would welcome similar links from conservative or other groups.
That is an informative site. It's going to be a project to read through all that.

Thanks.

For someone to become a Justice, they must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

So, whichever party controls the Presidency controls who is nominated.

Control of the Senate tends to control who is confirmed.

The President's choice is mitigated by political concerns and chance of confirmation.

Even when the same party controls the Senate, confirmation is still mitigated by numerous factors. One is the hearings themselves and things that may berevealed. Filibuster is a factor. Senators also tend to be rather independent -- particularly on issues like Supreme Court nominees.

Additionally, the fact that Justices are life appointees makes them more independent when they get on the bench. They aren't politically beholden (as well as I think the majesty of the office tempers some).

Thus, direct election would be a totally different prospect than the tempering process of checks and balances.

you forgot to include character assassination on the tv news channels.

i assume that bush nominated this guy because he thinks he is on "the team" and because he has already faced confirmation and passed. that should make this confirmation hearing go quickly.

when a man is this young with only a couple years on the bench, you cant assume you do know what he is going to do when he gets the highest judgeship in the country.

i wonder if the sitting members get together to haze the new guy and tell him some of the little secrets of the court. to kinda get him in line. make sure he understands that he cant be a toady to anyone anymore.

Exactly what I've seen. I spent my lunch hour and a half at the pistol range and I was quite surprised to find the only objection was over abortion. Maybe that's all that's been published on MoveOn.org so far.
Perhaps it's because nobody can find much information on him? I've been looking since yesterday, and the only issue I can find his position on is abortion.

Do you by any chance have some useful links?

EDIT:
Aha, I just found The Cat-Tribes' link.

The PFAW site looks at more than abortion.

I've found a site with summaries & links to various decisions by Roberts. Looks pretty interesting.

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/06/potential_nomin_2.html
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/roberts

I haven't verified the information or looked through the whole site. Appears their is more there.

The answer is that he will be like William Rehnquist, his former boss.

Judge Roberts, like the Chief, is an institutionalist - he has worked for essentially his entire professional career before the Supreme Court.

I also have the sense that they have a similar ideology. For example, I get the sense that he (like the Chief) simultaneously believes in strong Executive Powers (see the D.C. Circuit's recent Hamdan decision, which he joined) but also limited federal powers (see his dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in the Rancho Viejo case).

One difference may be that Judge Roberts's opinions show him to be more of a judicial craftsman than the Chief, who tends to write as concisely and directy as possible. But in analyzing cases, the two are similar, as Judge Roberts explained in his hearings that it may be appropriate to rely on different sources of meaning


I sure hope that turns out to be an accurate prediction!

Shouldn't those guys be neutral?If they were neutral they would refused to be involved in the political process at the 2000 presidential vote.

But they were mostly handpicked for their partisan loyalties.

Presidents have to be elected by the people...not by the Judges.