NationStates Jolt Archive

2 part poll: What are your thoughts on the potential newest member of the US Supreme Court? and How well do you know him?

I support him so far, but must admit I do not know much about him. Any background you wish to share?

I do strongly support him and feel he is a very good choice with the proper credentials and background.

According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

"When Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. goes before the phalanx of television cameras and his Senate interrogators for confirmation hearings, his qualificaitons or judicial temperament aren't exptected to stir much debate"

the article continues

"Instead, his ideology will be front and center, as lawmakers try to ferret out Roberts' political and philosophical views on everything from abortion to the scope of the federal government's power."


That sounds about right....

ANyone have a link to his prior rulings?

not off hand, but I think you may be able to get a list under the department of justice website. I know from what I have researched there are no real skeletons in his closet. The most controversial thing I have heard was that his wife was once a pro-bono lawyer for anti-abortion groups. He has my support.

speaking of the Post Dispatch, they had a great article today on page B4 of the NewsWatch section, it charts each supreme court justice through the history of nominations in the US, by which President, and shows how long and for what years they served. Very well done.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said he wants to ask the federal appeals court judge his views on civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, and other issues.

bump

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said he wants to ask the federal appeals court judge his views on civil rights, workers' rights, women's rights, and other issues.

No one takes him seriously anymore anyways.

not off hand, but I think you may be able to get a list under the department of justice website. I know from what I have researched there are no real skeletons in his closet. The most controversial thing I have heard was that his wife was once a pro-bono lawyer for anti-abortion groups. He has my support.
His wife is the co-head of a very large anti-abortion group--quite a bit more than a pro-bono lawyer. I'm not saying that that should disqualify him, just clarifying her position.

You didn't have an option for me..lol

I'm familiar with his positions and time (short time) on the court of Appeals. (2 years, I believe) however, I remain indifferent.

Why?

Well, so I'm a liberal and Bush got to appoint (will get to appoint) a judge young enough to a life time post that could span 40+ years. So in that you feel helpless.

On the other hand, while conservative, wow, Bush could of picked a lot worse! Think of the Bill O'Reilly's out there? LOL. From what I've read thus far, he's not looking to be an "activist" judge.

So, what do we still need to know?

I can't think of any way around it, he is going to have to answer his position on Roe vs. Wade. If he can assure the populace that it's not his intention on letting his "faith" get mixed up into his "legal" decisions. If that's true, my American friends might have gotten through this fairly unscathed.

Although, if he makes a shift, as many SCOTUS judges have before him, he could end up a moderate. I don't think you're going to see anyone Bush would appoint go "liberal" but, he could be a swing judge. That would be the smart thing. Why do you think that everyone can name "Sandra Day O'Connor" ( yes, some people can't name 9 really important people, pretty sad) but she stands out. Because you can believe that "Chief Justice William Rehnquist" held the power, but he didn't, it was her! She was the "swing" judge. Thus a moderate.

At the end of the day? I think it could of been a lot worse. There is something we sometimes have to remember, no matter how much it may, or may not suck. We all have our opinions, but in a democracy, the people speak. You have to let him (Bush) have it a little his way.

I'll see what skeletons they do or don't dig up on this guy. It's early -- So, I will remain indifferent.

What I find interesting is the fact that much more conservative, and much more liberal judges had no problem getting in, it just seems to be a powerplay politically by the Dems to fight anyone Bush puts up. Think about this: Scalia, who is just about as conservative as they come, got 98 of 100 senators to vote for him. On the polar opposite is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is about as liberal as they come. She got 96 of 100 votes. My how things have changed......

You didn't have an option for me..lol

I'm familiar with his positions and time (short time) on the court of Appeals. (2 years, I believe) however, I remain indifferent.

Why?

Well, so I'm a liberal and Bush got to appoint (will get to appoint) a judge young enough to a life time post that could span 40+ years. So in that you feel helpless.

On the other hand, while conservative, wow, Bush could of picked a lot worse! Think of the Bill O'Reilly's out there? LOL. From what I've read thus far, he's not looking to be an "activist" judge.

So, what do we still need to know?

I can't think of any way around it, he is going to have to answer his position on Roe vs. Wade. If he can assure the populace that it's not his intention on letting his "faith" get mixed up into his "legal" decisions. If that's true, my American friends might have gotten through this fairly unscathed.

Although, if he makes a shift, as many SCOTUS judges have before him, he could end up a moderate. I don't think you're going to see anyone Bush would appoint go "liberal" but, he could be a swing judge. That would be the smart thing. Why do you think that everyone can name "Sandra Day O'Connor" ( yes, some people can't name 9 really important people, pretty sad) but she stands out. Because you can believe that "Chief Justice William Rehnquist" held the power, but he didn't, it was her! She was the "swing" judge. Thus a moderate.

At the end of the day? I think it could of been a lot worse. There is something we sometimes have to remember, no matter how much it may, or may not suck. We all have our opinions, but in a democracy, the people speak. You have to let him (Bush) have it a little his way.

I'll see what skeletons they do or don't dig up on this guy. It's early -- So, I will remain indifferent.

I believe if I'm not mistaken, he's already said that he has no intentions, despite his position on the subject, to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says it's settled.

I believe if I'm not mistaken, he's already said that he has no intentions, despite his position on the subject, to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says it's settled.
He said so when being appointed to an APPELLATE court, where his job was to follow precedent not overturn it. The supreme court is the highest court in the US, and thats the point

Haloman, I believe you are right... That is one of the two or three famous quotes of his the media keeps throwing around. I think this is the most moderate person that will be put forth by Bush, and I don't think there will be any problem getting him in. However, if Renquist steps down in a year or so, we will see a battle, as surely a more conservative judge would be proposed.

I personally was a little surprised Judge Edith Clement (JD Tulane Univ) did not get the nod...

I believe if I'm not mistaken, he's already said that he has no intentions, despite his position on the subject, to overturn Roe v. Wade. He says it's settled.

That says a lot. Provided he's not lying. But, if he said it --

You know, this is the problem, there is not a lot of real hard info out there about him to research unless you're a reporter. (Investigative reporter)

They picked a guy, really, with so little time in. That makes me a little nervous. But, it really could of been worse, and who knows how in his tenure he will evolve, for the better or worse.

Oh, btw anyone who checked these choices --

" support him (Unfamiliar)"

OR

"I reject him (Unfamiliar)"

I have many words I can think of, however all of them are negative, so if I have nothing nice to say.......

Haloman, I believe you are right... That is one of the two or three famous quotes of his the media keeps throwing around. I think this is the most moderate person that will be put forth by Bush, and I don't think there will be any problem getting him in. However, if Renquist steps down in a year or so, we will see a battle, as surely a more conservative judge would be proposed.

With all that said, it's some what moot! The question really becomes, can you get more conservative than Renquist? He always votes with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, that's conservative!

So, it doesn't matter. :)

No real neutural option, so support in the general sense that unless someone is an obvious hack then a presidential nomination is worthy of support.

Oh BTW, for those who checked these choices --

Oh, btw anyone who checked these choices --

" support him (familiar)"

OR

"I reject him (familiar)"

I have a few things to say, but they are pretty negative. I spoke with a lawyer friend of mine who worked with (for) Roberts for a few years, and he couldn't say he was familiar with Roberts' judicial philosophy. Certainly there is not enough reliable information yet made public for anyone to call themselves familiar with him, even those of us who looked at him enough to have picked up some of his jokes aren't familar with him. (Back when he was in the office of the counsel to the president in the Reagan administration, he reviewed a letter complaining of a blacklist being compiled by the WH in which the author expressed his certainty that due to the letter the author also would be placed on the blacklist, Roberts wrote in the margin that once you let people know there is a list they will do anything to get on it.) Take Roe v Wade, he also stated that the case is bad law (not surprising) in addition to saying it is established law (also unsurprising), wll he overturn RvW if given a chance or not?