Bush to Nomate John Roberts to replace O'Conner

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
You can be if you try harder.

His views are what are idiotic

which of his views do you find best illustrate this idiocy?

[Winston]

It seems Pres. Bush has a pretty solid backing in advance for this guy among the senators. He said his staff consulted with 70 senators (whatever that's supposed to mean). Also, Roberts apparently got a unanimous confirmation on his appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court, which would suggest to me it'll probably be difficult for the Dems to obstruct him. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Geronimo


which of his views do you find best illustrate this idiocy?

My guess is that at no point did he affirm his willingness to 'hit it'.

[Ben Kenobi]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben you support a justice that said he would fully and faithfully apply the Roe precedent?

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't think it's clear how Roberts will treat Roe. He did say he'd respect the Roe precedent while under consideration for a spot on an apellate court, but being an apellate court judge is far different than being on the Supreme Court and actually having the opportunity to overturn that precedent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well he said it was "settled law" which indicates that even with the oppertunity to overturn precedent he wouldn't. If he wished to overturn Roe, he may have said that he disagrees with the ruling but would uphold precedent, instead of calling it settled law.

It seems he'd follow the Kennedy/O'Conner view on Roe's precedents.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I still don't think his views are clear on the matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dunno, when you say you were following what the client wanted and consider it settled law, it seems clear to me. If he changes his mind during confirmation, he'll get slammed as someone who was either lying then or lying now.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think he'll do his best to avoid taking any position on Roe during the confirmation hearings, as anyone with half a brain would...

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's kind of hard to avoid . They'll try their best to bring up past statements and ask him to explain them.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I dunno, when you say you were following what the client wanted and consider it settled law, it seems clear to me. If he changes his mind during confirmation, he'll get slammed as someone who was either lying then or lying now.

Justices change their minds from time to time, despite confirmation hearings.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In 2 years on such an issue like this? Don't think so.

[snoopy369]

Actually, Roberts' statements make me feel fairly good about him.

He's technically right - regardless of your stance on abortion - that Roe has little grounding in the Constitution. It was a bit of judicial activism in the 1970s - as I said, doesn't matter if you agree or not, and judicial activism isn't necessarily bad - but nonetheless he's technically accurate.

On the other hand, he's making the right statement - that he supports legal precedent. That's pretty much the rule in the Supreme court - and why a lot of legal scholars agree that Roe probably won't be overturned even if a conservative anti-Roe justice is selected; only two justices, Scalia and Thomas, are likely themselves to vote against the precedent, so they'd have to find 2 more that are willing to go against the legal precedent. Supreme Court Justices generally support precedent whenever possible - the idea being that consistent interpretation of the law is actually more valuable than completely accurate interpretation, when it's close. That's similar to an umpire in baseball (or any other sport); if the umpire calls a consistent strike zone, nobody really cares whether it's tight or loose (except the hitter that strikes out on a close call of course ) because it's consistent and predictable. Consistency in law is very valuable, because having laws change every five or ten years is a bad thing - it sets up a moving target, and the ultimate implication, if the Supreme Court is willing to blow with the wind, is that the Supreme Court loses influence, and nobody wants that.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I've heard that he intends to challenge Roe, not that it is settled law.