NationStates Jolt Archive

In 1990, David Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush Sr. He was confirmed 90-9. He had almost no controversial rulings and he was known as a stealth pick.

Sounds almost exactly like John Roberts...

Bush Sr. probably thought he was picking a conservative at the time. But Souter ended up siding with the liberal end of the court on most issues suprisingly.

Maybe it could happen with this guy. What do you think shall happen?

In 1990, David Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush Sr. He was confirmed 90-9. He had almost no controversial rulings and he was known as a stealth pick.

Sounds almost exactly like John Roberts...

Bush Sr. probably thought he was picking a conservative at the time. But Souter ended up siding with the liberal end of the court on most issues suprisingly.

Maybe it could happen with this guy. What do you think shall happen?
BY GOD, HE MIGHT BE A LIBERAL. BURN HIM!

In 1990, David Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush Sr. He was confirmed 90-9. He had almost no controversial rulings and he was known as a stealth pick.

Sounds almost exactly like John Roberts...

Bush Sr. probably thought he was picking a conservative at the time. But Souter ended up siding with the liberal end of the court on most issues suprisingly.

Maybe it could happen with this guy. What do you think shall happen?

I sincerely hope he turns out to be a liberal, or at least a moderate. However, I'm doubting it.

BY GOD, HE MIGHT BE A LIBERAL. BURN HIM!
LOL..If I ever do really rearrange your furniture and wardrobe, I'm gonna steal a TV for you. *nods*

If only Bush had gone with the pick I told him to make. You cant go wrong with arnold schwarzenegger.

I sincerely hope he turns out to be a liberal, or at least a moderate. However, I'm doubting it.

I'm hoping for a more libertarian slant than anything. I don't want him legislating from the bench, but I want him to at least have something that resembles humanity and understanding of the law. Not jump on the whole "it's immoral and unChristian bandwagon" like Scalia.

LOL..If I ever do really rearrange your furniture and wardrobe, I'm gonna steal a TV for you. *nods*
A TV? What witchery is this?

I'm hoping for a more libertarian slant than anything. I don't want him legislating from the bench, but I want him to at least have something that resembles humanity and understanding of the law. Not jump on the whole "it's immoral and unChristian bandwagon" like Scalia.

That'd be fine by me, for certain. I just fear for what'll happen if more conservative legislation is passed through.

A TV? What witchery is this?

A craft by which you steal the souls of others.

I'm hoping for a more libertarian slant than anything. I don't want him legislating from the bench, but I want him to at least have something that resembles humanity and understanding of the law. Not jump on the whole "it's immoral and unChristian bandwagon" like Scalia.
Legislating from the bench?

If only Bush had gone with the pick I told him to make. You cant go wrong with arnold schwarzenegger.LMAO! You're joking, right? :eek:

LMAO! You're joking, right? :eek:

No and while we're at it Hulk Hogan should replace condoleeza rice :rolleyes:

That'd be fine by me, for certain. I just fear for what'll happen if more conservative legislation is passed through. Yeah, we could have things like Roe v. Wade overturned, or worse.



A craft by which you steal the souls of others.It just sometimes steals your own soul, too. However mine is safely in the possession of NationStates :eek: ;)

In 1990, David Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush Sr. He was confirmed 90-9. He had almost no controversial rulings and he was known as a stealth pick.

Sounds almost exactly like John Roberts...

Bush Sr. probably thought he was picking a conservative at the time. But Souter ended up siding with the liberal end of the court on most issues suprisingly.

Maybe it could happen with this guy. What do you think shall happen?


Souter isn't the only current justice who did this. Stevens is extremely liberal, but was appointed by Ford.

Eisenhour (I can't spell, sue me) said his two biggest mistakes in office were supreme court appointments.

Yeah, we could have things like Roe v. Wade overturned, or worse.


It just sometimes steals your own soul, too. However mine is safely in the possession of NationStates :eek: ;)


Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision. This has nothing to do with politics--the majority of justices simply reached the incorrect conclusion. The legalization of abortion is something that constitutionally should be decided at the state level.

Personally, I think the decision at the state level should then be to outlaw abortion, but i acknowledge that the states have the authority to make that decision.

Souter isn't the only current justice who did this. Stevens is extremely liberal, but was appointed by Ford.

I’m sure the fact that Ford was an idiot had nothing to do with that.

Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision. This has nothing to do with politics--the majority of justices simply reached the incorrect conclusion. The legalization of abortion is something that constitutionally should be decided at the state level.

That’s the thing, though. It shouldn’t have to be legalized. It should be assumed legal.

Souter isn't the only current justice who did this. Stevens is extremely liberal, but was appointed by Ford.


True, but Ford, being my favorite president of moderately recent times, was a moderate Republican. Between the Goldwater conservative Rep. era and the neo-conservative era started by Reagan.

Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision. This has nothing to do with politics--the majority of justices simply reached the incorrect conclusion. The legalization of abortion is something that constitutionally should be decided at the state level.

Personally, I think the decision at the state level should then be to outlaw abortion, but i acknowledge that the states have the authority to make that decision.

They were right in making abortion legal. It shouldn't even have been made illegal in the first place. States shouldn't have any say in the matter whatsoever. It's my right to have any unwanted fetus removed from my body and it's not the State's choice to make for me. I swear, if the government tried to block me from my bodily rights in such a matter, they would not be getting a live baby out of me if I did not want it.

Yeah, we could have things like Roe v. Wade overturned, or worse.
Yeah, exactly my fear.

It just sometimes steals your own soul, too. However mine is safely in the possession of NationStates :eek: ;)

Mine belongs to my former choir director, and my girlfriend. They have timeshares on it.

Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision. This has nothing to do with politics--the majority of justices simply reached the incorrect conclusion. The legalization of abortion is something that constitutionally should be decided at the state level.

Personally, I think the decision at the state level should then be to outlaw abortion, but i acknowledge that the states have the authority to make that decision.

Meh.

Roe v. Wade was rightly decided by a 7-2 majority and has been affirmed repeatedly since then.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment places substantive limits on the states. Among the many substantive aspects of liberty are the fundamental right to privacy and abortion. Constitutionally, states may not infringe these fundamental liberties. Period.

By what skewed logic do you hold that states have a constitutionaly right to make the decision on abortion?

Would you oppose a federal ban on abortion?

Hmmm American's United for the Seperation of Church and State sent me a note saying John is a bad idea.

It seems when he was a deputy solicitor in the first Bush White House he was in charged of crafting policy under Ken Star. At that time he drafted a legal brief suggesting the SCOTUS scrap decades of settled church state seperation issues and support school sponsored prayer at public graduation ceremonies and other forms of goverment sponsored religion.

He seems a likeable guy but does he have a track record with religious minorities and fundamental civil and human rights?

Just because he is likeable does not make him qualified.....

Just because he is likeable does not make him qualified.....

I don't think any senator is going to vote nay and say it's because he's not qualified. He’s WAY qualified.

I think you mean to say you think he might be too conservative in his view of constitutional interpretation and not at all what you want him to be.

<snip> That’s the thing, though. It shouldn’t have to be legalized. It should be assumed legal.
That is supposed to be the hallmark of the US system. If it has not been adjudicated "Illegal" then it is "Legal"

Negative Rights vs. "Positive" Rights.

Shame that we now have enough laws to have essentially inverted that position... :(

In 1990, David Souter was nominated to the Supreme Court by Bush Sr. He was confirmed 90-9. He had almost no controversial rulings and he was known as a stealth pick.

Sounds almost exactly like John Roberts...

Bush Sr. probably thought he was picking a conservative at the time. But Souter ended up siding with the liberal end of the court on most issues suprisingly.

Maybe it could happen with this guy. What do you think shall happen?

Sure it could happen. It is now common place in politics to pretend to be something other than what you really are. The democratic party is loaded to the gills with them. Our own president professes to be a conservative, but what do his actions prove him to be?
No matter what anyone says, judges are politicians every bit as much as other groups of lawyers and every bit as inclined to be just as sneaky and dishonest as the rest. I do have to admit though, this is the first time I have ever seen a judge actually be on record in both sides of abortion. I realize that he was writing for the administrations position in his first brief, but it sure strikes me as convinent.
Another thing I find interesting is that he claimed to subscribe to established presidence, yet, he is supposed to be an originalist. I find these two positions to be almost mutually exclusive. Either way, it should be interesting to see if Ruthie G can work her womanly charm on him. We'll know for sure if his first opinion refers to his counterparts as comrades. :D

If only Bush had gone with the pick I told him to make. You cant go wrong with arnold schwarzenegger.

Na. They're still hoping to make him president someday. :)

I reckon this guy was chosen because there would be next to no resistance to him.
With Iraq, that Rove fella, and all the other crap that Bush has to deal with, and relatively low approval ratings from his citizens, he did the only right thing and shirked away from a fight.
I'm not sure whether he could have come out of an all-out battle alive in the current situation.

As I posted in the other thread, do not assume this nomination will sail through.

It took three nominations for Roberts to be confirmed to the DC Circuit.

He was nominated by George the Elder but was not confirmed because he was too extreme.

He was nominated by George the Younger in 2001 but was not confirmed.

He was nominated again in 2003 and then confirmed.

He was a well qualified, but controversial appointee for the DC Circuit.

He is not necessarily well qualified for the Supreme Court -- although I'll wait to see what the ABA says.

He is not an uncontroversial nominee.

As I posted in the other thread, do not assume this nomination will sail through.

It took three nominations for Roberts to be confirmed to the DC Circuit.

He was nominated by George the Elder but was not confirmed because he was too extreme.

He was nominated by George the Younger in 2001 but was not confirmed.

He was nominated again in 2003 and then confirmed.

He was a well qualified, but controversial appointee for the DC Circuit.

He is not necessarily well qualified for the Supreme Court -- although I'll wait to see what the ABA says.

He is not an uncontroversial nominee.
Whatever happened to consulting the ABA before nominating someone?

Whatever happened to consulting the ABA before nominating someone?

The Republicans stopped doing it.

They complained about the ABA's ratings.

Yeah, we could have things like Roe v. Wade overturned, or worse.


It just sometimes steals your own soul, too. However mine is safely in the possession of NationStates :eek: ;)
Roe v. Wade will NOT be overturned. Why don't you guys drop it? He made his statement about it being overturned before he made the statement about it being the law of the land. One statement was made as solicitor general, one was made during his confirmation (I think). Quit being so paranoid of it.

As I posted in the other thread, do not assume this nomination will sail through.

It took three nominations for Roberts to be confirmed to the DC Circuit.

He was nominated by George the Elder but was not confirmed because he was too extreme.

He was nominated by George the Younger in 2001 but was not confirmed.

He was nominated again in 2003 and then confirmed.

He was a well qualified, but controversial appointee for the DC Circuit.

He is not necessarily well qualified for the Supreme Court -- although I'll wait to see what the ABA says.

He is not an uncontroversial nominee.
I don't know if you're unaware, but the DC Circuit is considered the 2nd most important court in the country. It's necessary to make sure someone is qualified enough to be on it, and he obviously was. His track record on such an influential court proves him to be worthy of a Supreme Court position.

Unless of course you think the Democratic Senators and their threats of "the F-word" just got tired of him being nominated, so they overwhelmingly voted him onto the circuit.

Roe v. Wade will NOT be overturned. Why don't you guys drop it? He made his statement about it being overturned before he made the statement about it being the law of the land. One statement was made as solicitor general, one was made during his confirmation (I think). Quit being so paranoid of it.


When someone who is going to be on a US Court of Appeals says they will follow Supreme Court precedent, that isn't particularly reassuring.

As a Supreme Court Justice he can be the swing vote to make it no longer the law of the land.

When the most recent cases in which Roe was at issue were 5-4, it is not paranoia to say that a new Justice could lead to Roe being overturned.

I certainly believe Roe should not be overturned. I would hope that a new Justice would respect the precedent. But I won't be lulled into a false sense of security.

I don't know if you're unaware, but the DC Circuit is considered the 2nd most important court in the country. It's necessary to make sure someone is qualified enough to be on it, and he obviously was. His track record on such an influential court proves him to be worthy of a Supreme Court position.

Unless of course you think the Democratic Senators and their threats of "the F-word" just got tired of him being nominated, so they overwhelmingly voted him onto the circuit.

Gee, straight from the GOP talking points.

1. "the second most important court" is a label that is applied to lots of the Circuits. All the Courts of Appeal are equal. It is a meaningless phrase.

2. Being qualified to be on a US Court of Appeals is not the same as being qualified to be on the Supreme Court. The assertion is silly. There are any number of appellate judges that the GOP would object to putting on the Supreme Court -- even if the confirmed their earlier appointment.

3. My guess is you have little clue as to what Judge Roberts's "track record" is from the whole two years he has been on the DC Circuit. Two years on a Court of Appeals does not make one a shoe-in for the Supreme Court.

Gee, straight from the GOP talking points.

1. "the second most important court" is a label that is applied to lots of the Circuits. All the Courts of Appeal are equal. It is a meaningless phrase.

2. Being qualified to be on a US Court of Appeals is not the same as being qualified to be on the Supreme Court. The assertion is silly. There are any number of appellate judges that the GOP would object to putting on the Supreme Court -- even if the confirmed their earlier appointment.

3. My guess is you have little clue as to what Judge Roberts's "track record" is from the whole two years he has been on the DC Circuit. Two years on a Court of Appeals does not make one a shoe-in for the Supreme Court.
The DC court covers matters around the capital.

Roberts has had a lot of experience with the Supreme Court. He seems to know just how it works and what he would be dealing with as a judge.

I didn't say he was a shoe-in, but if he is confirmed, it won't take an incredible amount of time. The Senators that confirmed him obviously didn't have much of a problem with his stance then, and while they should care more at this confirmation, he's already been perceived to be a good candidate by a lot of the same Senators.

He is not an uncontroversial nominee.
But there would have been more controversial candidates, no?

1. "the second most important court" is a label that is applied to lots of the Circuits. All the Courts of Appeal are equal. It is a meaningless phrase.


The DC circuit is often called a "stepping-stone" historically, though. How many Justices came from there, by proportion? I have no idea, but I've heard it repeated so many times, it'd be interesting.

----

Anyhow, I like Roberts overall. I like his youth, his (limited, to be sure) track record, as far as it goes, and his low ratings from PACs I generally don't like. I say Bush picked a winner. Congress was expecting one of the Ediths or Rogers Brown, and Bush threw them a white guy. Crafty. I say he sails in, minus Chuck Schumer's vote, and possibly Kennedy.

On a side note: please, please, please, let Teddy Kennedy go on a primetime T.V. rant against this nominee! :p That'd make him a shoo-in.

Roberts has had a lot of experience with the Supreme Court. He seems to know just how it works and what he would be dealing with as a judge.


And he served under Rehnquist for a time, didn't he? Rehnquist's sudden resolve to stay for the next term is interesting, given Bush's pick. Maybe he knew a bit about it beforehand. Hm.

The DC court covers matters around the capital.
*snip*

One can make the argument that other circuits are more important. Others hear more cases, cover wider territory, or cover greater populations. The Federal Circuit also has particular authority in areas some argue are most important.

The label is commonly applied, but as I said means little. The best claim to special status of the DC Circuit is the current number of Supreme Court Justices that came from the DC Circuit and that a number of cases involving administrative appeals.

A quick Google search returned this as the first hit (and turned up no other analyses of justifying the label):

What's So Important About the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals? (http://slate.msn.com/id/2078310/)

When the Senate Judiciary Committee voted last week to approve Miguel Estrada's nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the New York Times noted that the court is "widely viewed as second in importance only to the Supreme Court." Virtually every other news account makes the same point. There are 11 other federal circuit courts of appeal scattered across the country. What makes the D.C. court so special?

Actually, legal experts agree, nothing much. The real reason most people say the court is so important, it turns out, is that other people have been saying the same thing for years. According to the Lexis-Nexis database, the phrase "second most important court" has appeared in articles about the D.C. Circuit 44 times since 1986.

How did the D.C. court acquire its reputation? For one thing, it has a prestigious alumni association. Three of the nine current Supreme Court justices—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—once sat as judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Then there's the court's wonky caseload. Because it's located in the nation's capital, where a huge number of federal agencies are based, the D.C. Circuit's docket is heavy on administrative appeals—that is, cases requiring it to rule on the legality of government action. Some court-watchers assume that a disproportionate number of these appeals end up before the U.S. Supreme Court simply because they deal with important issues.

But the problem with the wonky-caseload theory is that it's not really true. In each of the terms ending in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (the most recent for which records are readily available), the Supremes took no more than three (out of approximately 80) cases from the D.C. Circuit. Over the same time period, it reviewed as many as 16 from the mammoth (and controversial) 9th Circuit, which is based in California, and eight from the 2nd Circuit, which includes New York state. And while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews a huge number of administrative appeals—in 2001, 721 of its 1,270 cases fell into the category—other circuits also see large numbers. The 9th Circuit, which handles a number of INS decisions, took on 1,119 administrative appeals the same year.

What's true about the D.C. court is that it's a magnet for judges with national reputations. In part, that's because when the president wants to appoint someone to the other 11 circuits, he has to consult the region's U.S. senators, who often lobby for friends. But the District has no senators, so the president can appoint a judge from anywhere in the country without much fuss. And then, when they get to the second-most important court in the land, they have plenty of time to schmooze with the people who could promote them to the first.

(interestingly, I saw references to other courts as the "second highest" or "second most-important" courts in the land)