What are Judge Roberts' partisan credentials?

I'm glad *someone* is not going to rubber stamp this guy like Bush is apparently expecting the Senate to do.

And no, I'm not a troll or an idiot - just new to the blog.

Well, we did lose the election, and the winner gets to make these appointments. This guy is credentialed, and even if we don't like what we suspect his political views to be, he warrants confirmation.

If he has a conservative ideology, at least he came by it honestly, and will have to defend himself in his opinions.

Not a whacko.

I am a member of the democratic party, and I am worried about the direction it is heading. The Republicans control all three branches, and the Democrats seem to be floundering at every turn. Barring some revelation about this guy's past, there is no way for the Democrats to win a fight against him. They should just simle and consent. The least productive thing to do now would be to fillibuster it, because if that happens the Republicans will not hesitate to revoke that ability. The leadership of the Democrats should start working on courting the middle, and only fight back when there is either a chance to win, or when there is really nothing at stake.

It is very difficult for one to have "impressive legal credentials" and still be charged with "sharp partisan credentials". That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. His "impressive legal credentials" clearly demonstrate that Judge Roberts makes judicial rulings based on his understanding of the law and legal precedent. If that understanding of the law does not agree with Mr. Dean, maybe it is Mr. Dean who does not possess legal credentials and reasoning that are on a par with Judge Roberts. It is Mr. Dean who consistently tries to impose blind partisanship into the judicial process.

Well, I'm glad to see that 2 Democrats actually showed up here, so far.

As is happening with some regularity, I find myself viewing the Chairman's comments as regrettable.

Judge Roberts deserves a fair and impartial hearing in the Senate. As progressive Democrats participating in a free society we must honor and respect philosophies that oppose our own to be expressed, even in the judiciary. This is particularly true when we lose national elections. Unfortunately, the voters have decided they want the Republicans to set policy through the midterm elections in 2006. We have no one to blame for this but ourselves. After all, we are the ones who prematurely ordained Senator Kerry the party's nominee before coming to the cold and unyielding realization that he lacked conviction, courage, and any sort of appeal to our brothers and sisters living below the Mason-Dixon line.

While I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to give this party some much needed spine, I believe that we have a responsibility to reserve judgment on judicial nominees until hearings are held. From what I know of Judge Roberts he is a brilliant man with good temperment, redoubtable legal credentials, and a great respect for the Court. I look forward to hearing his responses in the upcoming hearings, and hope that he is treated fairly, questioned aggressively, and held to the high standards established by great justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

I am quite open-minded, not driven by ideology. Until this fellow is proven to be a wrong guy, I have nothing to against him.

He did look confident and charming on TV screen. Hopefully this is not a wrong guy in the disguise of qualified professional.

Every time I hear that the Dems should not put up a fight I think about how much our country has changed over the last five years and I want to puke. This candidate does not have the respect from progressive organizations - NARAL, HRC, PFAW, etc. and get this - he has only been a judge for TWO years! There will be more coming out in the days ahead as to how extreme and conservative this nominee is even though the corporate media whores will paint him as a moderate. He is pro-corporate and anti-environment, anti-women (anti-Roe) anti-gay rights, and wants to close the separation of church and state allowing for things such as prayer in school. If you do not think this man will swing the Supreme court and our country even more to the right then you are fooling yourself. Is this what Democrats want? to give away any rights we have fought for in the last forty years? Our Dem leaders have rolled over and extreme judges now sit on the courts all around the country! listen people, we are losing our country and our party. Bush/Rove are killing democracy one law and judge at a time and shipping Americans off to a trumped up war in Iraq to die for their lies. This candidate will effect not only our lives but our children's lives. This is worth a fight!! and dean thinks so too with that comment. but will we convince our Democratic leaders it is? that is up to us. This is serious. It's the future we all share that is at stake.

As a Democrat, I have to agree with the general tone of the comments here. We don't know very much about Judge Roberts yet, and frankly neither do the Democratic senators. He doesn't have much of a paper trail. What we do know is that Judge Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent, and that he mentioned in his confirmation hearing at that time that he would respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade. That tends to make one think that perhaps Judge Roberts is a traditionalist conservative like Justice Souter, who respects judicial precedent, rather than an originalist conservative like Justices Scalia and Thomas, or a Constitution in Exile conservative like Judges Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor.

All in all, things are looking okay. Yes, Roberts is a conservative; no, he isn't a moderate. But welcome to a world where the conservative political party has control of the White House and the Congress -- they don't have to nominate a moderate, and they didn't. Can you blame them? If the situation were reversed, would we have nominated a moderate? I don't think so.

I think we all need to calm down and wait for the confirmation hearings, when moderate Republican Arlen Specter -- who helped stop Robert Bork's confirmation -- will no doubt join with the Democratic minority to find out just what Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy is. In the meantime, we need to remember that the Senate has the role of advice and consent -- not Chairman Dean, and not the interest groups.

Tony Perkins, head of the family research council issues statement of pleasure with Bush's hard right pick. "President Bush is a man of his word and his pick is along the lines of Scalia and Thomas." Folks, we are going back in time - to the dark ages...

A lot of ankle grabbing going on here. Hope you're enjoying it, I prefer a fight.

We don't know very much about the positions that Judge Roberts will take, in fact, we know very little. What we do know is that this man is widely respected on both sides of the isle, and unlike Republicans, we should take a look at the person and not the party before we make any judements. I agree with those who believe that we should keep an open mind while we find out what Judge Roberts stands for. The GOP likes to think for their voters, lets be Democrats and keep an open mind. Bill Clinton said it best; "Democrats win when people think".

I prefer a fight too, but not fight for fight's sake. Even though we are in a partisan environment, we still have to be open-minded. You never know; America may got lucky this time (we haven't been lucky since Bush has become the President). He may turn out a reasonable judge, not an ideology-driven one. Anyway, it is too early to determine anything. I do want the senators to be tough--not give an easy pass to this guy, especially in the condition that this guy doesn't have enough paper trail to determine his intention and he seems a little bit too sleek to reveal his true color. Most importantly, this is a life-time job and he is relatively very young. It must be a long and hard hearing process to prove that he is not a wrong one.

What are his credentials to be a Supreme Court Justice? He has only served on the bench for two years and made no major decisions. His past history as an attorney is all we really have to go on. I think there are far better candidates who have decades of judical experience which Roberts lacks.

Is he a strict constructionist? There is no evidence from his short tenure on the Appeals Courts. I also wonder if there may be some conflicts of interests. His client list, his work for the Solicitor General's partisan political agenda, and his clerking for Reinquest might indicate Bush has nominated an activist judge.

He's going to have to prove to the nation that he is worthy of this post. We deserve an eminent jurist not a political appointee. His judical resume is lackluster at best. He will have to demonstrate in the coming hearings how his work as an attorney equals to the judical excellence of those already serving on the Supreme Court. It's going to be a tough sell.

Why can't this President find better qualified nominees for any post? There were plenty of conservative judges who would have filled the vacancy without casting so many doubts. We don't have to lower our standards.

Bush Makes a Partisan Choice
Posted by Jesse Berney on July 19, 2005 at 09:44 PM

jessie, i stand by an earlier post i made. rove>roberts. they had no choice except to move quickly. even our local news reported the timing at 6pm shoved off the rove story to a roberts story. this white-house is very political savy.

The New York Times' editorial sums up everything

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/opinion/20wed1.html?pagewanted=print

WHAT?!?!??!!!! This is a candidate who has clearly and consistently come out against choice and affirmative action, and all you guys can say is "give him a chance?"

JESUS! You are all we have to stop the right-wing juggernaut from:

* Totally bankrupting Social Security;
* Sending thousands more kids to die in Iraq so rich white men can get their hands on even more oil, making them even richer;
* Totally co-opting our national media to do their bidding however they see fit;
* Continuing to employ people most likely guilty of treason;
* Continuing to offer the lamest of excuses as to why they have yet to catch the man responsible for the deaths of thousands on 9/11;
* Blaming Bill Clinton for everything they can think of, after they effectively ground his White House to a halt through abuse of the legislative process.

Now BushCo is trying to cram some corporation-loving, hard-right ideologue down our throats and all you can say is "let's be open-minded"?

My heart is breaking that, by all signs, this is as good as it gets from the Democratic Party. Martin Luther King, Shirley Chisholm, and Susan B. Anthony are doing cartwheels in their graves right now.

May the ghost of Franklin D. Roosevelt put a pox on all your houses!

Is this what Democrats want? to give away any rights we have fought for in the last forty years? Our Dem leaders have rolled over and extreme judges now sit on the courts all around the country! listen people, we are losing our country and our party.

Well, at least ONE person here is making some sense! Here's hoping he has SOME friends out there!

Shame on all you all, in all sincerity.

TurnTNBlue:

I like your passion.

Yes, no matter how we got to fight the fight.

From WashingtonPost.com, just now:

"Jan LaRue, chief counsel to Concerned Women for America, said the conservative group is prepared to gear up a grass-roots campaign in support of Roberts if Democrats threaten to filibuster. "Everything I know tells me he meets the president's criteria very well; he clearly is in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas" -- both conservative justices."

GAAAH! "Give him a chance," you say.

Man. I bet they said that about Hitler, too...

I heard that two years ago he was voted in unamiously. Well if this is true, if we start attacking him before the facts then we lose. Be tough in the hearing but let the public understand the decisions the leadership make otherwise we will look like flip floppers and obstructionist. Either we (the democrats) were wrong then or we are wrong now and I dont think the elecorate remembers anything so we lose going forward.

ps. i'm not a troll......

The Republicans can always count on the "reasonableness" of Democrats, they strategize on it. We are dealing wiht people like Karl Rove, who declared a CIA agent was "fair game" because he had decided her husband was a Democrat.

An election reform activist, Andy Stephenson, suffering from pancreatic cancer made internet appeals to pay for a need operation, since he had no health care. Freepers accused him of running a scam, making small donations via PayPal, then lodging complaints of fraud with the company to freeze the funds. They even harrassed him in the hospital. When he went home to recuperate, they filed a complaint with the state attorney general for Medicaid fraud. When he died, they accused the dead man of carrying out a hoax. I don't know they dug up his body to satisfy themselves that he was dead, but it wouldn't surprise me.

These are not isolated cases. We are dealing with a juggernaut of power mad people who hate your guts if you disagree with them. The only thing they understand is a kick in the teeth, and pretending otherwise is foolishness.

That freedom stuff was nice while it lasted. No wonder new democracies don't want to use the American model anymore. That is, those out there who acknowledge there are other countries other than the USA.

Indefatigable, while we Democrats are busy "thinking" the Repub's are busy WINNING. And now that they have done that - they are busy ROLLING OVER US and leaving our party, our country, and our rights in their dust. This candidate is only another example of solidifying the right wing power structure in the judiciary at the expense of yet again - Democrat complacency. People - enough of this "oh maybe this time will be different" crap!! If you still trust Bush to deliver anything to us then you are fooling yourselves in a big way. We are losing elections, giving them more power, and giving them NO FIGHTS they can't handle. What more info do you need? especially after Iraq??!! You simply cannot trust them AT ALL. It is no surprise when you read some of the comments here they have NO PROBLEM doing any of this to us or America. This is of major importance so wake up. When the Repub's own the judiciary branch of government lock, stock, and barrel, they will control ALL of America. We will HAVE NOTHING. NOTHING! With all branches under the majority control of Republican interests, they will ensure that their control is not threatened or taken away. Ever. If they can steal elections, lie and start an illegal war and get away with it, control and manipulate the majority of the media, and protect criminals in their own administration on issues bigger than watergate, then what else do you think they are capable of? Does this sound like the America you can or want to give them the benefit of the doubt with or ever trust them with?

Given some Supreme Court decisions allowing entire neighborhoods to be seized so a Wal-Mart can build another Megastore, allowing big HMOs to deny services to clients to save money, and pandering to the interests of the big tobacco lobby, another big business oriented jurist is hardly what the court needed.

And with a sharply partisan and bleak outlook on civil liberties and individual rights, with a legal view that the interests of the individual are second to those of government, and that the Constitution is not a living and evolving document, then Judge Roberts will satisfy those who believe the state is everything and the individual nothing.

The confirmation hearings will focus on this difference in philosophy which most Democrats certainly do not share with "conservative" jurists like Roberts. But he'll unfortunately probably join the bench for the next 20 or thirty years and be confirmed.

PROGRESSIVE VALUES

The president said his choice will "strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench."

Article 1: Section 8: Clause 11:

The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Article 1: Section 8: Clause 12:

The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.

Article 2: Section 2: Clause 1:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

For a definition of the scope of the president's powers in this matter we need only to turn to the founding fathers for clarification:

"The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. . . . It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and Admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and the raising and regulating of fleets and armies, -- all of which by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." (The Federalist, 69, 1788.)

Alexander Hamilton

". . . The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature . . . the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war." (1793.)
"The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature." (Letter to Jefferson, c. 1798.)

James Madison

On August 26, 2002, President George W. Bush's senior officials announced that the President's lawyers had advised him that he did not need to seek congressional approval before launching a military attack against Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, despite the requirements of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This conclusion was based partly on the President's constitutional role as Commander in Chief and partly on the theory that the President may act pursuant to the congressional permission given in 1991 to Bush's father, the former President, to fight Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf War.

Two lawsuits were filed and subsequently dismissed. In Doe v. Bush, a number of active-duty military personnel, parents of military personnel, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives sought an injunction to prevent war in Iraq. The First Circuit dismissed the case, declaring it unripe because Congress had not expressed an objection to war. In Callan v. Bush, a former Congressman claimed the President's attack on Iraq violated the War Powers Resolution. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that (1) former Representative Clair Callen did not have standing because he had not been personally injured, and (2) the suit violated the political question doctrine. These decisions were appealed, but because the fighting in Iraq has ended, the claims are probably moot. Nevertheless, the constitutional questions regarding the power to engage troops remain unresolved, and because of the seemingly perpetual state of countries at war, such questions are certain to be raised again in the future. Indeed, the same questions arose during the presidencies of Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. At some point the judiciary needs to address these important unresolved issues.

Will it fall to the Supreme Court with Roberts sitting to decide the constitutionally of the wars powers act and congressional resolutions authorizing the President to go to war instead o

If we were to outright oppose Robert's nomination, it would likely still pass. HOWEVER, this is an opportunity for us to show the American public that as Democrats, we are the party of progress, and not the "party of NO" that the Republicans would like to portray us as. (Check out their "Wild Thing" video:http://www.gop.com/MultiMedia/Default.aspx)

Instead of wasting oxygen on debating Robert's likely appointment, we could refuse to play politics on their terms.

We should push forward a consensus candidate of our own. This person would never be confirmed without Bush's nomination, but if the media caught on, it woluld certainly be a gesture that all Americans can respect, even if they don't agree with it.

In the words of Donald Trump, "Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. "

On another note, i forget which think-tank concluded that we were only up for "moderate gains" in 2006 because of what would seem to be a lack of a positive party message (instead of the same old stop them idea). Hopefully, that idea would at least take off the sting of their attacks in the midterms.

A few days ago, Senator Charles Schumer methodically and meticulously layed out a list of issues and questions that he would be asking any US Supreme Court nominee. (Broadcast on C-Span) He thoroughly covered every base.

Later, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont joined Senator Schumer in a news conference. Every time I listen to these two, I am in awe of the brilliance of their legal minds and their ability. I have every confidence in Schumer and Leahy to skillfully represent the interests of the American people during the proceedings in the judicial committee and would trust their judgment regarding the nominee. They will also have the support of their staffs and colleagues.
We, the people, are their clients. I believe that we have the best legal team to safeguard our concerns and justice in this process.

I agree with the general tenor of the comments here and feel very relieved at the choice of Judge Roberts. He is a member of the legal establishment (nothing wrong with that!) and he is not an ideologue. The choice reflects Bush's concern for avoiding confrontation. It shows respect for all sides and may signal that he is running a bit scared of the ground swell against him on other non-related issues such as Social Security and Iraq. This choice will hopefully be immediately accepted by the Democrats. If Roe has to be overturned, let it be. It is the Court who has to decide. And then we can get back to Iraq and Karl Rove and forget about Roe. Let the state legislatures once again worry about abortion.

I am proud of the the liberals reaction to Bush's nominee.It was interesting to see when the news broke about Edith C. that you libs had press releases all over the place condemming her nomination.Later on when Bush announced John Roberts as the nominee,It only took 5 minutes after Bush left that podium did the party of "NO" go into high gear condemming this nomination,starting with your moveon.org division and other groups coming out against it like a row of dominos.Then your lib in charge Dean starting in with his cheap talk,you know the conspiracy,bush lied ,big oil ,haliburton ,Karl Rove,downing street, bull.You guys are doing a great job and hopefully youll help us pick up seats in the mid-terms.Have a nice day...

Found Roberts application for the job (hee hee):

http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=sprm&Category_Code=newr

Instead of blasting this nomination on politics - could the DNC spend some time on its homepage showing some thoughtful expert opinions - pro and con would be VERY NON-PArtisan of us. The RNC site lists tons of "non-partisan" comments - I look to the DNC to provide me with this insight, not political sound bites. Let's set the tone, let's show the country that we can look at the situations as they arise, not as the "No-party".

I want to support this nominee because he is a good strong judicial expert on the constitution, or I am eager to speak against him, but you must show me why - not just tell me his is partisan.

DNC - THINK - we must act united, intelligently and with open minds on each issue!

I'm amazed at how polarized this group is. With the GOP going right of right, why doesn't the Democrats (ie, us) pick up the moderate middle ground. There are many of us that we're disenfranchised in the last election because we had nobody to vote for.

Alas, instead we seem to move further left to counter balance the GOP moves. I don't think it's a winnable situation for the dnc.

This is a fine nominee with very little history of having a partisan track record. I commend the president on his choice and look forward to the confirmation process.

Gee, what a surprise (sarcasm), Bush announced a judge early to distract evryone from Rove and Scooter.

Okay, it's not exactly a surprise that he picked a right winger - liked equally by the culture war Republicans and Business Is King Republicans (are there any other type of Republicans?).

I also love these Republicans jumping into this blog and asking Democrats for moderation. Duh? Bush picked a polarizing right-winger and they ask Democrats for moderation. Typical Republican tactics - condemn the Democrats while they do exactly what they are condemning.

While I appreciate the Chairman's efforts to give this party some much needed spine, I believe that we have a responsibility to reserve judgment on judicial nominees until hearings are held. From what I know of Judge Roberts he is a brilliant man with good temperment, redoubtable legal credentials, and a great respect for the Court. I look forward to hearing his responses in the upcoming hearings, and hope that he is treated fairly, questioned aggressively, and held to the high standards established by great justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum.

Posted by PracticalProgressive on July 19, 2005 at 11:11 PM

For your edification, here are a FEW of the things we DO know about Mr. Roberts. Most of his history is shadowy and hidden. Why , I wonder???

John Roberts: Where does he stand?

John Roberts has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for only two years and was a corporate law firm lawyer for most of his career. He has a sparse public record, making it difficult to evaluate his fitness for the Supreme Court. Where he does have a record, however, Roberts fails to show a commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights, both in his role as a Deputy Solicitor General and judge.

Because Roberts’ views on many basic issues remain unknown, the Senate must ask, and the American people must know far more about, Judge Roberts’ views on key constitutional and other legal issues in order for his nomination to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court to be evaluated properly. His confirmation depends on his willingness to share his legal philosophy on basic constitutional and other legal questions.

As the “political” deputy solicitor general during the first Bush Administration:

Argued to overturn fundamental privacy rights: Roberts tried to convince the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in a case that didn’t even directly concern that issue. The case was Rust v. Sullivan, which dealt with a rule prohibiting federally funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with patients, not the validity of Roe. Nevertheless, Roberts’ brief proclaimed that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled” and that the Court’s ruling that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about abortion has “no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”

Argued against fundamental First Amendment protections: Roberts urged the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman to rule that public schools can officially sponsor prayer at high school graduation ceremonies. The Court rejected Roberts’ arguments.

As a judge on the D.C. Circuit:

Tried to undermine basic environmental protections: Roberts wrote a dissent suggesting that the Endangered Species Act, at least as applied in a case concerning a California development project, was unconstitutional. All the other judges on the court except one, including judges appointed by President Reagan and the first President Bush, disagreed with Roberts.

Rejected important protections for veterans: Roberts wrote another opinion disagreeing with the majority asserting that federal courts cannot even hear claims by American soldiers who had been tortured by Iraq as POWs during the Gulf War.

Upheld arrest of young girl for eating a single French fry on the Metro: Roberts ruled against a 12-year old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation.

A lot of ankle grabbing going on here. Hope you're enjoying it, I prefer a fight.

Posted by c_at_l_bob on July 19, 2005 at 11:45 PM

I hope there is not a single Democrat here, who has not already called their Senators this morning !!!! Who have not already signed the PFAW, the NARAL, the Planned Parenthood, the True Majority petitions. Who have not written a Letter to the Editor of their paper!

They should be told this is NOT the time to roll over and just vote Yes. It is time to dig into the past of Roberts, and show the country what they are getting as someone who will make law for them for the next 30 years !!!!

With pressure from the Religious Right, this guy will not mellow in time, merely become more and more Conservative in his decisions.

If Roe has to be overturned, let it be. It is the Court who has to decide. And then we can get back to Iraq and Karl Rove and forget about Roe. Let the state legislatures once again worry about abortion.

Posted by HumptyDumpty on July 20, 2005 at 05:43 AM

Humpty is obviously a Male with no uterus. I have said it before, if it were man who became pregnant, Abortion would not even be an issue. It would be an accepted fact from Day One! How about those Red Religious Taliban States, which will say NO to abortion??? What about the poor women who will be back on kitchen tables with knitting needles being stuck up into them?????

Even Republican females, Christian or not, get abortions. Trust me on that one. The day the decision comes down, to get rid of Abortion, is the day that 80 million women will Revolt !!!

Bye Abortion
Bye Affirmative Action
Bye Prisoners at Guatmo
Bye Tobbaco Lawsuits
Bye No Prayer in School

Bye Democratic Party!!!!

Posted by PamB on July 20, 2005 at 09:03 AM

Thanks for sharing some of the cases he's been involved with. From this overview he appears to know how to judge others but not how to determine justice.

One problem I have with him is that he's pleaded so many times before the present members that he would be able to almost always second guess positions and thus not offer a fresh perspective or any objectivity to the Court.

His impressive leagl experience is almost exclusively as an attorney and makes him an excellent candidate for Attorney General or Solicitor General. I don't think this carries over to the jurist side. Only two years on any bench might help him understand the arguments presented, but would he have the judical experience to understand their relevance or significance?

I think we could do a lot better than this candidate and should insist that Bush defend his selection.

One person brought up that Roberts is “Not a whacko”, I think that’s setting the bar a bit low.

Lots of folks have mentioned Roberts’ “impressive legal credentials”. This is a SCOTUS appointment, not a judge for the municipal court. He better have impressive credentials, that’s a minimum requirement. As far as respect goes, sure, an appeals court judge is respected. Municipal court judges should be respectable, too. That’s another minimum daily requirement for SCOTUS.

I already pointed out that Ken Mehlman and friends count on us acting as “progressive Democrats participating in a free society [where] we must honor and respect philosophies that oppose our own”. It’s our wimp factor, they just love it.

Those who say that Judge Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by unanimous consent are using the GOP talking points to post here. Roberts was confirmed by a voice vote, which not the same thing, but unanimous consent sounds better. All it means is, if there were any dissenters in the chamber, they didn’t think it necessary to make an issue of where each senator stood on Roberts.

Roberts is a judicial ideologue in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. He is being appointed to put a stake through the heart of all gains progressives made in this country between 1933 and 1980.

When Roberts wrote the argument that Roe vs. Wade was an incorrect decision, he wasn't just writing a brief for George H. W. Bush. Roe v. Wade wasn't the issue in that case, and the court specifically said its ruling wasn't based on the fundamental fact of ROe. This guys against choice, he wants to make abortion illegal.

On commercial decisions, he has signaled that he will follow Ws lead in evicerating the EPA. If he ruled agains an endangered species, lumber companies are going to love him, why do you think that is?

It's OK to put a 12-year-old in JAIL for eating a french fry on the train. This because a minor my give a false name, and thus avoid the penalty of a fine????

Let me question whether or not Roberts is a whacko.

How disturbing is it that we have to put up with the idiocracies of another conservative possible Supreme Court Justice? I am 16 years old, and I even understand that he will try to sway the entire Supreme Court. His extremist conservative ways will, we can only hope, come back to bite him in the years to come. God help us all!

This site, the DNC, the "Dims" who reside within the DNC and whats left of your representation at the Federal level are JOKES people. Had President Bush nominated JESUS EFFING CHRIST to the SCOTUS the DNC would have faxed talking points on his anti-islamic religious fundementalism.

You people dont know sh_t about sh_t about this guy and you are ready to crucify him. Perhaps you should organize another fecal party like the one you did to Rove. You have ZERO shame....

Isn't it amazing, how the Republicans love to say the Democrats are angry and nasty, but they should only check into the DNC blog, to see how Angry and Nasty their own voters are.

With a 39% Bush Approval rating, those that come in here are the minority, who are not Repblicans or Conservatives at all. They are merely that group of the population, who drink the koolaid of Limbaugh and Fox News, and who think with their Wallet, not their hearts. They do not WANT to inform themselves of Truth. to do so, might mean they made a Big Mistake last election !! And the blood of 1770 US soldiers is upon their hands !!

“progressive Democrats

Translation: socialist granola worshiping "Eurapologist"

participating in a free society [where] we must honor and respect philosophies that oppose our own”. It’s our wimp factor, they just love it.

This from the party of "tolerance and diversity". What a joke. Sure we'll tolerate you and celebrate diversity as long as you dont hold any single view to the right of Engel.

This is nomination is not just about abortion. Stop calling him a conservative judge and start calling him a republican judge (which is what he is):

The Dallas Morning News says that in the 2000 presidential campaign recount, Roberts gave "Gov. Jeb Bush critical advice on how the Florida Legislature could constitutionally name George W. Bush the winner at a time when Republicans feared that if the recount were to continue the courts might force a different choice."

How does Wall Street view the pick? Lehman Brothers' Washington office tells clients that they see "two short term implications for a confirmation on the market: first, it would increase the likelihood that Congress can pass bills in the fall... Second, it would allow the Senate Judiciary Committee members to focus on other issues..." More: "Judge Roberts' views would potentially impact the business community in his first year on the bench, with major decisions expected on financial services (impacting lenders), on employment law (impacting companies employing wage earners), and on antitrust law (potential implications across sectors). We do not believe that anyone can predict a consistent positive or negative impact for the business community based on Judge Roberts' previous rulings or his reputation as a 'legal conservative.'"

and who think with their Wallet, not their hearts.

Socialists and pacifists think with their hearts... looters and leeches love this train of thought, they depend on it. America would be a third rate power if the "progressives" got their way even half the time. Thank God the American people see right through it.

Lets talk about elections shall we? Whens the last time you won one? Even a "liberal" definition you have to go back 10 years.

Cheers.

Would Judge John Roberts agree with me that the war on drugs at the federal level is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that licensing marriage is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that the USAPATRIOT Act is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that legislating professional sports at the federal level is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that military conscription is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that using eminent domain for "economic development" is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that prohibition against public nudity is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that laws prohibiting flag-burning are unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that laws at the federal level against murder are unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that gun control is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that sword-control and pepper spray-control are also unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that compulsory mental-health screenings, at the federal level, are unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that censorship (not including rape porn and child porn) is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that the REAL ID Act is unconstitutional?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that it's the duty of Congress (not the President) to declare war, and that Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to delegate its constitutional powers to any other branch of the government (because doing so thus negates the separation of powers)?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that forcing people to say things against their will goes against freedom of speech?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that everyone has an innate right not to undergo cruel and unusual punishment, not just Americans?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that everyone has an innate right to due process, not just Americans?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that everyone has an innate right to freedom of speech, not just Americans?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that everyone has an innate right to freedom of religion, not just Americans?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that it's unconstitutional to give tax dollars to foreign dictators?

Would Judge Roberts agree with me that America is meant to be a Republic, not a Democracy?

If he's a strident Constitutionist, I'll support. Otherwise, no way.

QUOTE: "Lets talk about elections shall we? Whens the last time you won one? Even a 'liberal' definition you have to go back 10 years."

The last time a Liberal won a Presidential election was 1804 (correct me if the date is wrong). His name was Thomas Jefferson.

John G. Roberts is a great nominee for the Supreme Court. As a paying memeber of the DNC and my local Ward Organization, I would like to see this appointment go forward without my Party nakibg a collective Ass of itself. I know John Roberts and he is a great scholar, a devout Catholic, a conservative, but no ideologue. I hope that our Senators avoid painting this honorable man as some Hannity/Limbaugh goof. It will only hurt us.

He has legal creds no doubt, but this guy's been a judge for just two years now- I hardly think that's enough to merit a life seat on our highest court in the nation.

There are other judges more qualified. He doesn't have the experience of a judge worthy of the SC, simple as that.

To Pam B,

As a male sans uterus, which seems a redundancy in itself, I believe that the Democratic Party has been scuttled by radical feminists and other equally myopic factions. When the pink " I had and Abortion!" T-Shirts made their appearances during the Convention, George picked up hundreds of thousands of more votes.

I am not sure that 80 million women would revolt - maybe, but those are numbers I could live with.

Just in case anyone is wondering, the questions I asked were serious. I'd really like to know where he stands on these issues. I hope that when he's interviewed by Congress, that these questions will be asked. :)

"Either you're with us or you're against us".

It's either black or white.

You either support a women or you don't.

Mrs. Roberts is a member of "Fems for Life" - an anti women group.

Enough said - say good bye to 70 years of fighting for women's rights. I'm glad I'm old. I feel sorry for the future of all of the young women in this country. This President and the religious right will take us back to back alleys and women who have no voice. It's a very sad day today indeed.

I've got an idea, rather than try to make the Democratic party a centrist organization, why don't all you "moderates" (who I think are really Freepers playing a role) start the Moderation party?

You can adopt Rodney King as your mascot.

John Roberts advocates government invasion of privacy
John Roberts advocates government control over women's bodies
John Roberts advocates discrimination of pregnant women and minorities
John Roberts advocates racial segregation in schools
John Roberts advocates environmental destruction by predatory businesses
John Roberts advocates the killing of endangered species by predatory businesses
John Roberts advocates putting American workers at risk to predatory business
John Roberts advocates putting American consumers at risk to predatory business
John Roberts advocates destroying Americans' environments such as parks
John Roberts advocates integration of church and state
John Roberts advocates amnesty for criminally liable organizations

Oh Come on N.O.W.!

You people are so dumb. Did you actually think Bush would select a democrat. You all sound like your stunned.

Fems for Life
Is PRO LIFE
There fore they hate women even thou it is made up of women.
So Old lady NOBUSH up a few treads Thinks your not a women unless you have killed an unborn child. Only women who kill their babies are real women. NOT MY WORDS BUT MISS NOBUSH.

PamB, The point is that it is up to the SC to look again at Roe. No one knows at this point what Roberts and the others will in fact decide.

Discussions about abortion are always emotional and invariably end up being depressing. Abortion itself is depressing. There is no doubt that the point of view of a woman can be different from that of a man since, yes, women have the nine months of ... being a woman. That is the way things are. No matter what the circumstance, abortion is always a tragedy.

Rather than argue the whole issue over and over and get nowhere, just read the original transcripts of Wade Roe and you see the arguements haven't changed. What I think has changed is the realization that this issue is causing our coutry to fall apart.

So in this sense it affects us all and it is not a private affair between woman and doctor. I think Judge Roberts is aware of this and he may be the best to articulate cases going forward. I love Howard Dean, but I disagree with his position on abortion.

Anyway, Roe is not so much about abortion as it is about states rights and the constitution. The issue has to move back to the political arena and out of the judicial. Otherwise you politicize the judiciary and that is not we need. The last thirty years have shown us why.

As for the women's revolution, I think most men are willing to take the chance.

We don't need to put up a big fight on this one. Roberts is a good pick. Conservative, yes. But not a radical. And the Senate already approved him by a wide margin for the D.C. Circuit. I think this is about as good as we can hope for.

By uniting behind this guy, we can build political capital and use it against more pressing issues, e.g., Karl Rove.

On another note, i forget which think-tank concluded that we were only up for "moderate gains" in 2006 because of what would seem to be a lack of a positive party message (instead of the same old stop them idea). Hopefully, that idea would at least take off the sting of their attacks in the midterms.

Well, the problem is this: the Democratic Party has become utterly beholden to corporate interests, which are stopping us from crafting anything positive at all. Raising the minimum wage? Yeah right, all the fat-cat donors recruited by McAuliffe will shut that down in a jiffy.

Reforming retirement income or health care? Same reason - we can't do anything that would endanger the major league corporate megabucks that are required to run these national elections.

So what's the solution? I don't know. I'd had some hope that Howard Dean would move more toward the $100 contributions for which his campaign was noted. But nope, so far it's more of the same, and we have a party with a progressive history that's now utterly hamstrung by its dependence on corporate largesse.

It makes me sad that so many of our own seem to have drunk the Republicans' Kool-Aid, and think that parroting lines fed to us by the Republicans and DINOs in our own party - about how the anger we deservedly feel is somehow not valid or not appealing - is the way to go.

To paraphrase Harry Truman, if you give people a fake Republican to support or a real one, they'll go for the real one every time. We are just not going to get anywhere by parroting the Republicans or by doing anything they tell us to do, since it has been amply demonstrated that a.) their philosophies are, and should be, different from ours, and that b.) you just can't trust this new, virulent strain of Republican. I honestly don't know how George Bush can live with himself, but luckily I think history will be far harder on him than this undead legion that calls itself the White House Press Corps has been of late.

With a 39% Bush Approval rating, those that come in here are the minority, who are not Repblicans or Conservatives at all. They are merely that group of the population, who drink the koolaid of Limbaugh and Fox News, and who think with their Wallet, not their hearts. They do not WANT to inform themselves of Truth. to do so, might mean they made a Big Mistake last election !! And the blood of 1770 US soldiers is upon their hands !!

Amen, sister. And you don't have to look any further than right here to see what kind of people they are - they're taking time out of their busy schedules, which could be used to be doing something constructive rather than destructive, to come in here and be hateful.

I just don't have any use for folks like that. They ought to be joining us in thinking up ways to make this country better, instead of resorting to more of their oh-so-familiar tactics of divisiveness to weaken it further.

You know, I'm glad I'm not a Republican, or a member of an organized religion, right now, because I have friends in each group who are embarrassed by their behavior. Not all Republicans or churchgoers are bad people, but you sure couldn't tell it by the behavior of their national representatives right about now.

Hi Pam,

Regardless of which side you are on regarding abortion, you have to admit that there's scant support for it in the constitution. Sooner or later, it's going to become the purview of the legislatures and (hopefully) the state legislatures. Abortion was legal in a number of states before Roe v Wade.

There's little point to dragging down the dnc with this issue. The debate really belongs at the state level where the laws can reflect the views of the majority of the citizens. Some states are quite conservative, and no doubt, it will be illegal. However, quite a few states have historically been moderate and progressive, and I suspect these states will vote to keep abortion legal.

Try to detach from this, and think strategically for a moment. The female voting population basically defected to the GOP in the last election. However, if women start to loose their rights, it would certainly recenter this very important voting block.

PS- Yes, I'd vote for legal abortion, although I'd never personally recommend this choice to anybody. (Been there; have the T-shirt).

www.fladems.com

We don't need to put up a big fight on this one. Roberts is a good pick. Conservative, yes. But not a radical. And the Senate already approved him by a wide margin for the D.C. Circuit. I think this is about as good as we can hope for.

Posted by chris_crary on July 20, 2005 at 01:07 PM

Deep down I know you're right. It could have been Janice Rogers Brown.

There is not much of a paper trail on Roberts and what little I've dug into is not the greatest. Gotta dig more into paper trail and professional life.

There's little point to dragging down the dnc with this issue. The debate really belongs at the state level where the laws can reflect the views of the majority of the citizens. Some states are quite conservative, and no doubt, it will be illegal. However, quite a few states have historically been moderate and progressive, and I suspect these states will vote to keep abortion legal.

Posted by kurtg on July 20, 2005 at 01:50 PM

What you say does have merit, but when one resides in a state where if allowed to determine the legality of issue itself would not only make the procedure illegal, but probably the mention of the very word itself, it is not something to be looked forward to. Florida is not known for its' enlightenment.

So what's the solution? I don't know. I'd had some hope that Howard Dean would move more toward the $100 contributions for which his campaign was noted. But nope, so far it's more of the same, and we have a party with a progressive history that's now utterly hamstrung by its dependence on corporate largesse.

Posted by TurnTNBlue1 on July 20, 2005 at 01:14 PM

Dean has tried to circumvent this, but it is difficult because the "Beltway" crwod don't want to turn a loose of the reins.

We start with the reality that this nomination will pass. So we need to focus on how Dems can make the most of this opportunity to present their views. I believe there are way for Dems to win even while losing this nomination.

First, this is a time to appeal beyond various liberal special interest groups. This should not be a referendum on abortion or privacy rights only. I trust that Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, etc. as well as Howard Dean can find a way to make this an inquiry into bigger and broader themes than abortion rights and how what the Supreme Court decides affects average Americans. What are the consequences for average Americans?

There are times when going negative is smart politics but I don't think this is one of those times. The American people deserve an honest and serious inquiry into the ideas, principles and character of this nominee, and into the consequences of right wing judicial rulings, but they will not appreciate it if Dems proceed to bash Roberts and hold him personally responsible for every conservative wrong.

This does not mean Dems have to back down on what they believe at all. This is an opportunity to put forth a vision of what a Democratic appointee might look like and how Supreme Court decisions based on Dem principles in a variety of areas would positively affect Americans.

Unfortunately, how Dems fare will depend as much on style as on substance. America needs to witness civility in the opposition. Also, words matter. I hope the best speechwriters in America (and I don’t mean recycled campaign hacks) are lined up for this to give our leaders the eloquence that will be necessary to sound like winners, even while losing.

DON'T FALL INTO THE TRAP!!!

Many Republicans are claiming that any attacks against the candidate are inherently "partisan" and that Democrats should stop. But they are being hypocritical!

Democrats share many of their views, so if they all oppose the guy, it's not because of the party but because of their views. But most of all:

CNN reports that the very next day thousands of people were holding signs outside of the Supreme Court that said "CONFIRM!" How could they organize after 9 pm with the signs unless, *gasp*, THEY WERE PLANNING IT BEFORE THE SPEECH!

Thus, REPUBLICANS were ready to demand approval before the guy was announced! So if Democrats are ready to discuss credentials after the guy is announced, WHO IS BEING PARTISAN?!

Florida is not known for its' enlightenment.

Posted by J on July 20, 2005 at 02:39 PM

I live in small community in Florida as well. You probably know as well as I do that abortion is like rocket fuel to the conservatives. (The only thing more electifying is talking about Hillary running in 2008.) What really rubs salt in the wounds is that their views aren't represented because of the supreme court decision.

Although I'm hardly a fundamentalist christian, I can see their point on this issue. I've long thought that abortion should be debated based on it's merits. It simply shouldn't be a constitutional issue just like prohibition shouldn't be.

Besides, you can use Ireland and the UK as an example of what will happen if some states make abortion illegal. London is about $150 round trip ticket from Dublin, and abortion clinics there provide high quality services to Irish women. Dublin itself debates the merits of abortion, but so far decides against it given both its Catholic constituency and availability of services in the UK.

It's official. This marks the first day of President Bush's nomination of Judge john G. Roberts of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as associate justice to the Supreme Court.

Here are some reactions to the blog as it stands now:

Typical Republican tactics - condemn the Democrats while they do exactly what they are condemning.
Posted by rjsnj on July 20, 2005 at 08:49 AM

Yes. I believe the word for that is "chutzpah." But I concur; I have observed the same thing; that really has gotten to be a favored Republican modus operandi.

The day the decision comes down, to get rid of Abortion, is the day that 80 million women will Revolt !!!
Posted by PamB on July 20, 2005 at 09:24 AM

You have my blessing. In fact, I will join you. A little bit of revolution on this point could be a positive thing. And I am sorry WoodSt took a shot at you (July 20, 2005 at 11:18 AM ) He speaks for himself, alone.

Dallas Morning News.... Lehman Brothers....
Posted by Denise on July 20, 2005 at 10:38 AM

Good to see some outside sources. Nice work.

America would be a third rate power if the "progressives" got their way even half the time. Thank God the American people see right through it....

Cheers.
Posted by Coulterite on July 20, 2005 at 10:41 AM

Thank God the American people see right through your recalcitrant drivel!

Oh yes, and one other thing: Cheers!

I'd really like to know where he stands on these issues....
Posted by Alex on July 20, 2005 at 11:19 AM

Stay tuned.

John Roberts advocates....
Posted by now on July 20, 2005 at 11:47 AM

With all due respect, these do not appear to be responsible assertions. Surely we have a duty to be every bit as responsible as that which we would demand of our opponents.

In many of the blog entries there is a call to stand up and fight. Well, yes, but which fight? And how do we presume to go about it?

Those two questions lead into what has been my reaction to this news from the very outset. In fact, I drew up the following nine paragraphs before even looking to the blog precisely because I did not wish to lose sight of my own reactions. I present them to you with but a few modest revisions as follows:

National Public Radio (NPR) cites Judge Roberts' reputation as, "He is known to have a brilliant legal mind with impeccable credentials and unquestioned integrity. He had a reputation as one of the nation's best litigators."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761970.

Further down in the same story, NPR speaks to Judge Roberts' record on abortion: "[Judge Roberts] signed a legal brief in 1991 arguing for the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a women's right to abortion. But Roberts was arguing on behalf of his client, the U.S. government, so it is not clear if this is his personal view."

Judge Roberts is known among conservatives as, "a solid conservative. [They cite] his record on abortion, the environment and church-state issues." ibid.

I have yet to delve into the particulars on this, but I am taking this as shorthand for religious ethics for abortion and church-state issues, and corporate ethics for the environment.

So what now?

I doubt that Judge Roberts represents me very well, but I believe in separating the people from the problem.

For many years I have been concerned about those who would have the state resolve all our moral ambiguity for us. That is a clear violation of the establishment clause of the constitution.

On the other hand, too many of us have been derelict when it comes to setting forth the areas of genuine ambiguity. It is ambiguous, for example, that any life that is less neurologically developed than what we eat for lunch should ever be raised to the status of full person-hood, with all the attending rights that go with that. And unless we can speak decisively to that particular element of the debate, we are left absorbing the image of those with a reckless disregard for the value of human life. This is one area where I would move the fight.

The problem for those of us who believe in a woman's right to choose, is that for all intents and purposes, we have abandoned the field to those who have been debating the other side of this issue. We have refused to answer their charges head on. And when I have urged Planned Parenthood to address these matters, I have been admonished that this would be distasteful and upsetting to too many people.

Unfortunately, our opponents have been less considerate about what is distasteful and upsetting, and correspondingly, they have gained the upper hand. They have confronted us with distasteful, upsetting images of fetuses in a bottle in a well-orchestrated, distasteful, upsetting campaign to define the issues. And so they have.

The nomination of Judge Roberts to replace Judge O'Connor on the Supreme Court is but the latest reminder of our failure to mind the store. But it would be a mistake to view him as the problem and waste our energies--and indeed our credibility--on attacking Judge Roberts while leaving the real source of our misery to fester.

Based on what I have seen so far, I do not believe in attacking Judge Roberts at all. Oh sure, if there should be some surprising revelations yet to be encountered, I would want to take them into consideration. But short of a shameful series of really ugly, tendentious, arguments--things that would inevitably backfire against us--that really appears to be a doubtful scenario.

What we should be doing is meeting with all our friends and neighbors to discuss whether we are a people who work through their own morals, or if we should submit to cursory understandings of morality in the abstract that may be held by a simple majority of the populous with no direct stake in our lives.

And as to the establishment of the fetus as a separate person, with rights and privileges of its own, rights and privileges upheld by outsiders in outright defiance of its parents-to-be, that needs to be questioned and refuted right at the source.

Sure, human-rights-for-fetuses is an acceptable way of viewing things for those who choose to be guided by such inspiration in arriving at decisions about the fate of their own offspring, but that is not an appropriate mindset to be imposed on everyone else facing similar decisions. It does not pass the test of basic reasonability!

And it is not a matter of being any less moral than those who elect to allow nature to run its own course.

If we believe in God, then why should we fancy that He has any less to say to us in our own time than He did thousands of years ago? And why should we hide behind musty, old scriptures to avoid what God reveals to us today?

Just because today's imperatives do not match up with what was written long before any of us were born should not preclude any of us from giving full, due diligence to the facts of our lives without being distracted by a lot of out-of-date material that fails the logic of our own time.

To debase others for the nuanced moral decisions they choose, apart from those in which we have a direct stake, is an act of rank prejudice. And let it be known as such, quite apart from all the irrelevant folderol that may be used to back it up.

This is where the debate should be. We will fight if we must, but it would be unseemly to start a fight before exhausting every effort to clarify the underlying reasons for our own positions.

Let the debate begin. And if some people choose to hide behind the fig leaf that our arguments are too distasteful and upsetting, let us nevertheless remain undeterred from clearly articulating everything that truly needs to be said.

That is where to start. And once the entire nation is finally buzzing about what is truly on the table, judicial nominations will take care of themselves.

Gary Bauer of American Values today proved how much the "right" fears women and their power to make good judgement for us. In his daily end of day report he writes,
"The "easy choice" for President Bush would have been to nominate another woman to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and for much of the day conservatives were bracing for a disappointment as rumors spread like wildfire that the nominee was another woman, a potential "stealth candidate," very much like O'Connor."

How do takes these guys down?

There is little question that Roberts should be confirmed. He reminds me a lot of Justice John Paul Stevens. He clerked for a conservative justice -- Rutledge -- and he worked at Justice before going into private practice.

Roberts is going to be fine. DO NOT BE PUSHED TO THE LEFT BY NARAL. Lately, I have begun to wonder if these people work for President Bush. It's like they don't understand that Roberts is not a crazy extreme social conservative. He is a mainstream conservative -- someone that will recognize the federal constitutional right to abortion and someone that will not be a Thomas vote.

He is very bright and articulate. We aren't going to get a Ruth Bader Ginsburg. . . .

Over the next few weeks and months, we are going to see lots of urgent requests detailing how John Roberts will overturn Roe v. Wade. As both a democrat and a liberal, these are tempting. I certainly don't specialize in grabbing my ankles, and occasionally, I do indeed like a fight just for fights' sake. I do not deny that this president has done as much for scaling back our civil rights and liberties as Nixon did to bring scandal to the White House, and while I am literally the last person on earth to give this president any credit for anything--I want to urge caution for all liberals (and democrats, and moderates) who might be tempted to jump on the abortion rights bandwagon and freak out about this nominee. From my view, while he is a terrible nominee for the environment, and is clearly pro-big business, he may not be the end of Roe v. Wade (technically, Carey v. Planned Parenthood, which established the undue burden test for abortion laws that we all know today).

A couple of (true and non-inflammatory) points about Roberts:

--as far as we can tell, he does not (as it is said above), have a "long history of working with anti-choice groups." In fact, Roberts has a long history of working for anti-choice presidents. There is a fundamental difference. Anyone at a state or the federal solicitor general's office will tell you that, as a lawyer for the government, you are required to advocate on behalf of your client--which, when you work for the solicitor general, is the government. If you work for the government at a time when its administrative head is anti-choice--you will likely have to advocate that view along the way. This does not necessarily reflect a personal view, and in fact, may be anathematic to your personal view. While the government may allow pharmacists' personal views to interfere with their job performance these days--lawyers are not allowed to alter their practice based on the same moral superiority complex. In sum, a view expressed by Roberts in a co-authored brief very possibly does not, and should not, reflect his personal view--it reflects the view of his client. At the time, that was Reagan and the elder Bush's White Houses. It is much more important to rely on what Roberts said about Roe v. Wade when asked his personal view at his confirmation hearing for the DC Court of Appeals--that it was the law of the land and that he was bound to uphold it. This center may not hold, but rather than it being a certainty that he would overturn Roe, it's as much a roll of the dice as was the selection of Sandra Day O'Connor.

--Roberts is not a "textualist" conservative in the same way that Scalia and Thomas are--he has not not shown any tendency to adhere to the strict text of the Constitution rather than reading into it certain basic rights, like privacy, the fundamental right from which the right to an abortion is derived. Instead, Roberts' opinions show that he has a high regard for the law of the land. That is, adherence to case precedent and laws rather than striking out on his own (i.e. as of now, he seems more likely to follow Roe v. Wade than randomly overturn it based on his own views, or to strictly interpret the Constitution to read the abortion right out of it). For example--in upholding a ridiculous arrest of a 12 year old girl for eating a French fry on the Metro--he wrote: "The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry. The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm." This kind of decision is not a bad thing. It means that Roberts is not swayed by public outcry (think--conservative movement dedicated to injecting religion into our government and taking away our right to abortion), but rather decides the law based on the existing legal principles.

--Roberts, while young on the bench, is extremely well qualified. He is, according to most people who know him, a first rate legal mind. Of course, as noted above these are required for a supreme court justice--but with our genius president at the helm--it's a blessing to have a well qualified candidate rather than one of Bush's friends with a ridiculous nickname and an oil rig in his backyard.

So, before we rush to sign petitions and buy into every special interest group out there that wants to blast or praise this candidate, take a moment to read more about him--in a variety of news outlets. When you have learned more about Roberts, watch the confirmation hearings and judge for yourself whether he is as bad or as good as everyone says. Now is a monumental time, and we SHOULD all take action. But, because it is so important, we should rely on our own judgment before we write our congressmen, not some point and click petition that is giving you only the facts that support their theory. Roberts may not be a good nominee--but you should decide that for yourself and then take action. Anything else is irresponsible and, dare I say it, unpatriotic.

SRS

Thanks for the comments. I also think that these special interest groups are fueling the Republican Party.

That is, my moderately conservative neighbors said to me this morning, "If President Bush had nominated Jesus Christ, the Democrats would have opposed the nomination." It's important to distinguish between having a discussion and a debate on substantive issues -- say, No Child Left Behind or whether to go to war -- and just arguing for the sake of argument.

In my view, we should support Roberts' nomination unless/until we learn he engaged in some sort of illegal behavior. He has a sound mind and is certainly qualified to serve.

Why did Spunky reject a woman nominee? Doesn't he trust women judges? Replacing a conservative white woman with a conservative white male tells us just how little he respects conservative
women.

Do they mind being shoved aside? I thought most of the heavier RNC water buckets were carried by these ladies who do most of the grassroots organizational work, as well as contribute money and time freely to get candidtates elected. I guess they don't mind being put back in their place and letting the men take the top positions.

Why should the RNC men share the power when these women are such suckers. They just aren't smart enough.

Posted by J on July 20, 2005 at 02:29 PM

J, Roberts doesn't have a record to examine because he hasn't been a judge for more than two years. Would you appoint someone to the Board of Directors if he had only two years of business experience.

This guy was an advocate for the Solicitor General's partisan agenda. That's the paper trail you want to follow.

Fantastic candidate! Noble, humble, highly-intelligent and just man!!

As a registered Independent I truly think the Demorcats are hurting themselves with all the Bush-bashing, filibustering, etc. The Dems credibility is at stake here. Folks like Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, etc. make Democrats sound like cry-babies by constantly protesting everything that comes from Bush.

Look, John Kerry lost the presidential election, get over it. Dems have been sore about that ever since November. The winning candidate (Bush) has every right to nominate a judge he feels is going to be a good Supreme Court Justice, it's his priviledge as elected President. Being sore losers and standing against everything that comes forth from this administration make Democrats look like Fascists. Make the right decision by accepting John Roberts. Otherwise Dems are gonna make the American public sick of all the Right-wing conspiracy theories and vote Republican again in 2008.

Peace,
Sodajunkie

SandyH, you are crazy.

Chief Justice Rehnquist had NO judicial experience at all when he joined the court. Earl Warren had no judicial experience when he joined the court.

Bush is not filling the position with someone