Appellate court judge Roberts is Bush pick

[VV o n g B a]

after bush said he had considered “a variety of people, people from different walks of life,” he picks a solid conservative white male who had written that nothing in the constitution supported the right to an abortion. man... i gotta say i'm surprised even tho i shoudln't be. bush was making all these noises about picking a mainstream person. all this talk in the press about another woman or a latino... it was just hot air.

---------------
NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 8:05 p.m. ET July 19, 2005
WASHINGTON - President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock-solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation’s highest court, senior administration officials said.

Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation, with Roberts by his side.

Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.


Solid conservative
Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women’s reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

“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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/

[DragonKnight]

Just watched the announcement. Makes me wanna yack.

[Tao]

lol, that kidder

[yoMAMA]

so gonzalez will be the chief justice when Rehnquist leaves [or dies, probably more likely].....?

[hooligan]

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/...fm?NomineeID=5

:: golf claps :: this is going to be fucking great.

John Roberts

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.

Alliance for Justice Resources:

* Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
* Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts

* Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
* B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
* 1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
* 1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
* U.S. Department of Justice
o 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
o 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
* 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
* Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
o 1986-89, Associate
o 1993-present, Partner

General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:

Organization Position
Alliance for Justice Opposes

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

after bush said he had considered “a variety of people, people from different walks of life,” he picks a solid conservative white male who had written that nothing in the constitution supported the right to an abortion. man... i gotta say i'm surprised even tho i shoudln't be. bush was making all these noises about picking a mainstream person. all this talk in the press about another woman or a latino... it was just hot air.

"Mainstream"? In America that would exclude Asians who are not part of the demographic mainstream in America.

And neither are Hispanics of qualified age for the Supreme Court.

He did pick somebody "mainstream". White Americans are the mainstream of the over 50 set. And this guy is a Harvard Law school grad which is mainstream for the brainiacs in the legal profession.

So he's also a conservative. That's the mainstream of the people who voted for Bush.

He picked the most mainstream candidate out there.

Plus the guy is only 50 years old which I'm sure was a key factor.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

"Mainstream"? In America that would exclude Asians who are not part of the demographic mainstream in America.

And neither are Hispanics of qualified age for the Supreme Court.

He did pick somebody "mainstream". White Americans are the mainstream of the over 50 set. And this guy is a Harvard Law school grad which is mainstream for the brainiacs in the legal profession.

So he's also a conservative. That's the mainstream of the people who voted for Bush.

He picked the most mainstream candidate out there.

Plus the guy is only 50 years old which I'm sure was a key factor.

i think its blatantly obvious i meant philosophical mainstream rather than demographic. when 70% of the US doesn't want roe v wade overturned, i'd say he's out of the mainstream.

[DragonKnight]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

bush was making all these noises about picking a mainstream person. all this talk in the press about another woman or a latino... it was just hot air.

I guess a better way of saying it was that he was BS'ing about finding a person of a more diverse background. To better represent the different backgrounds our nation has.

...but as we can tell, Bush is pretty good at this bullshitting game.

[yoMAMA]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

i think its blatantly obvious i meant philosophical mainstream rather than demographic. when 70% of the US doesn't want roe v wade overturned, i'd say he's out of the mainstream.

but sometimes, supreme court justices becomes less "radical" once they are on the bench.

heck, some of them even turns into "quasi liberals"....like that guy regan appointed and now sides with liberals most of the time.....

i think his name is kennedy or something.

[lethal]

Originally Posted by yoMAMA

but sometimes, supreme court justices becomes less "radical" once they are on the bench.

heck, some of them even turns into "quasi liberals"....like that guy regan appointed and now sides with liberals most of the time.....

i think his name is kennedy or something.

Souter

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

i think its blatantly obvious i meant philosophical mainstream rather than demographic. when 70% of the US doesn't want roe v wade overturned, i'd say he's out of the mainstream.

That's not true. You clearly were disappointed that he chose a White man as well as a conservative in spite of the talk that he might chose someone other than a White man.

As you wrote:

after bush said he had considered “a variety of people, people from different walks of life,” he picks a solid conservative white male who had written that nothing in the constitution supported the right to an abortion. man... i gotta say i'm surprised even tho i shoudln't be. bush was making all these noises about picking a mainstream person. all this talk in the press about another woman or a latino... it was just hot air.

As for abortion here are some of Judge Roberts words:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w165142D55.DTL

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

"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.

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."
-------------------------
He is obviously correct on both counts. Clearly, the Constitution doesn't reference abortion therefore the issue becomes a state legal issue.

But as a conservative maybe he is granting authority to the 30+ year legal precedent of Roe v Wade. Or maybe not.

To make abortion legal in the Constitution all the Senate has to do is add a clear pro-abortion amendment to the Constitution.

But they wont take up that issue as long as more serious issues like steroids in sports are taking up their time.

[yoMAMA]

Originally Posted by lethal

Souter

thanks!

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

But they wont take up that issue as long as more serious issues like steroids in sports are taking up their time.

LOL

[Yeahman]

Did you expect him to nominate a pro-choicer?

[Arex]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

As for abortion here are some of Judge Roberts words:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w165142D55.DTL

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

"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.

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."

The difference is that as an appellate court judge, he wasn't permitted to reinterpret legal precedent. His job was to uphold/apply the existing law. As a supreme court justice, on the other hand, he may very well be asked to revisit and reinterpret rulings like Roe v. Wade. So his comments during his 2003 confirmation hearings aren't necessarily that telling here.

[Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by Arex

The difference is that as an appellate court judge, he wasn't permitted to reinterpret legal precedent. His job was to uphold/apply the existing law. As a supreme court justice, on the other hand, he may very well be asked to revisit and reinterpret rulings like Roe v. Wade. So his comments during his 2003 confirmation hearings aren't necessarily that telling here.

Yes, you do make a good point.

During his confirmation hearings it will be interesting to see if the Senators bring up this same point.