Bush to Nomate John Roberts to replace O'Conner

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Roberts doesn't have much of a paper trail, which is probably a major reason he got the nod. It's going to be more difficult for the Democrats to portray him as an extremist than it would have been with some of the other candidates.

I'm not too excited by the pick myself, but I understand that political considerations outweigh overall competence these days. Nominating the most brilliant jurist around is pointless if you can't get them confirmed...

edit: I was too hard on Roberts in this post; he sounds like an ideal candidate. I'm just bummed McConnell didn't get it. Maybe for chief justice?

Chief justice isn't a specific post - it's chosen from the justices when the old chief justice retires. Rehnquist wasn't selected as Chief Justice initially, not until something like 1983 or so. (Although theoretically you COULD select a new justice as Chief Justice - don't see why not - but it doesn't usually happen.)

[Ben Kenobi]

The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

This is the part of Imran's statement that he didn't bold. Seems pretty conclusive to me, how highly he regards Roe.

[Drake Tungsten]

He can't challenge Roe. Even if he's anti-Roe, which remains to be seen, the court will still be split 5-4 in favor of upholding the precedent.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I've heard that he intends to challenge Roe, not that it is settled law.

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

(from OP#2)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is the part of Imran's statement that he didn't bold. Seems pretty conclusive to me, how highly he regards Roe.

What do you think the following sentance means?! Roberts said he was merely following what a client wanted, not what he'd do on the bench. In 2003 he said what he'd do on the court.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


This is the part of Imran's statement that he didn't bold. Seems pretty conclusive to me, how highly he regards Roe.

He's right. Competely and utterly. There's no constitutional right to abortion, and never was. It was a piece of judicial activism; as I said, not necessarily a BAD piece of activism, but the right does not exist in the constitution nor is there anything that is reasonably construed as supporting it. Women had few rights in 1789, and the constitution reflects this; the ERA did not add to this specific right nor did the 14th.

As I said in my post - basically the entire point of my original post - he sounds like he simply knows what he's doing. He understands the constitution, and also understands the need to support legal precedent. He didn't even say he opposed Roe in that - simply that it's not grounded in Constitutional law. He's probably a strict constructionalist, from that statement, although I have no personal knowledge outside of this thread to support that.

[Drake Tungsten]

The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

These aren't Roberts' personal views. They're the view of the Reagan administration, who Roberts was representing at the time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Indeed Drake.. I wonder if Ben realizes what a 'brief' means .

[The Emperor Fabulous]

His stance on Roe v Wade was as an appelate (sp?) judge, whos job is to uphold the law.

As a Supreme Court Justice, it is quite different.

[Ted Striker]

All this Supreme Court Justice talk about hoes is making me all frisky. I just saw Anita Hill on tv and I can say I want to TAP THAT AZZ.

OBJECTION!!!

OVERRULED BEYOTCH!!!!!

[Ted Striker]

NOBODY SEXUALLY HARRASSES ME LIKE TED MUTHU****ING STRIKER BEYOTCH!!!111



AND STOP MUTHA****ING CLOWING IMRAN'S THREAD BEYOTCH!!!!!!!1111111111

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
His stance on Roe v Wade was as an appelate (sp?) judge, whos job is to uphold the law.

As a Supreme Court Justice, it is quite different.

Maybe you've been confused by recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, but they have to uphold the law as well .

[Drake Tungsten]

What we can look forward to more of in the future...

In the beginning of Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Bush nominee John G. Roberts Jr., Chairman Orrin Hatch praised Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York for asking "intelligent" questions, but then Hatch switched gears.

"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."

A stunned Schumer asked if he heard the chairman correctly, to which Hatch said yes. Again, Schumer asked Hatch if he would like to "revise and extend his remark," congressional speak for change his mind.

A former trial attorney, Hatch replied: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85640,00.html

I never thought I'd hear Orrin Hatch *****ing about "dumbass questions", but there it is...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Imran: Yes, but...unlike Appelate rulings, Justice rulings can change law.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Honestly, though, this might not be the worst nominee Bush could have come up with. Unfortunately, he doesn't have much of a track record to go on.

But then, as much as the media likes to say that O'Connor was the swing vote, it was really Breyer who became the swing vote in the last 5 years.

And who knows...this nominee may, in 5 years, become the swing vote. We all know how much 5 years in one job can change us.

I say, he deserves an up or down vote, not a filibuster that many of the others Bush could have picked would have warranted.

Unfortunately, he has ruled against unions and environmental legislation. He will only be confirmed by a 51-49 majority, me thinks.