Mr. Roberts
So Mr. Bush picked out a relatively unknown guy for the bench.
John G. Roberts Jr. Washington Area local, Roman Catholic, wife, 2 kids. 50 years old. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts)
Ok, what do we have here?
3 times nominated for the District Court of Appeals, passed over twice by the Senate.
Shiney, you're right, this guy has a lot of credentials. 39 cases in front of the Supreme Court. Harvard Law School. Clerked for Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly, and then for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. (Statement on Robert's 2003 Hearing Senator Orrin Hatch http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=739&wit_id=51)
He apparently has "uncommonly well-written" briefs and his systematic and thorough preparation for oral argument." (http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/roberts.htm)
Apparently he was part of the Bush-Cheney litigation team during Bush v. Gore. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html)
Political donations! He's a solid Republican, having donated only to Republicans since records began being kept in 1980. He's donated numerous times since 1993 to the HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE and Peter Rusthoven and Peter Fitzgerald. And Mr. Bush and Mr. Lugar (Senate Foreign Relations Chairman R-IN). (http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_G_Roberts.php)
The People For the American Way see blood. He doesn't seem to support the Lemon test as he advocates the allowing of prayer at education activities. Argues to expand Marsh v. Chambers into a new establishment clause test (the one that allowed Senate prayer). He also ruled in the Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., commonly known as the girl-who-ate-a-french-fry-on-the-metro case, where he stated that it was allowable for the police to have different procedures in dealing with juveniles and adults (on first offense adults would receive a warning, juveniles would be arrested). Brings up questions under 5th and 4th Amendment, personal freedoms and liberties. (http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf)
Also was involved in a case trying to criminalize flag burning, against the Texas v. Johnson precedent. (more details in pfaw brief) (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18795&c=316)
Sometimes alleged to be on the side of business. However, he was also a lawyer on the 19-state anti-monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. (http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/roberts.htm)
Apparently rather hated by pro-choice groups. However, I have yet to find any records of him saying that he was against abortion itself, but it seems that he is going for the constitutional basis from Roe v. Wade. As Solicitor General he said that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he 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.” (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=1916)
Won the case Rust v. Sullivan, where he argued that doctors receiving federal money did not have to talk to their patients about abortion. However, one should note that he argued this case as deputy to Solicitor General Starr, so it may not have been his opinion per se. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601049.html?nav=hcmodule)
Not a Sierra Club guy either. Argued for mountaintop removal mining in Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association, and against the individual's right to sue the federal government over environmental regulation violations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts).
Hm... so overall, though he's solidly a conservative, he isn't quite a firebrand neoconservative along the lines of DeLay or Santorum, he's not a paleoconservative along the lines of Bork or Buchanan, so he's not going to go down in flames during confirmations. The thing is, with a guy like this, it's hard to attack him. He's apparently a friendly, polite guy, and he's already stood up to the last judicial hearing he had, where he got over 70 questions (see the Hatch note).
I can't say I support him, but I do admit he's better than a lot of the other possible choices that were listed. He has the skills needed to intrepret laws and the constitution, the question is whether or not his personal biases will kick in to influence that.
Politically, Bush has made a great choice. A guy with charisma, charm, and an everyday American kind of image. The Democrats... are rather screwed. The liberals have been saving their political capital for months so that they can fight an grueling battle over the Supreme Court nominations, but now... this spells trouble. Attacking Roberts while maintaining public support would be rather hard, because most of the attacks would be along the lines of personal liberties/freedoms, constitutionality arguments which can easily alienate the public. And given the strong neoconservative swing in political opinion, his standings on abortion and prayer, though constitutionally questionable, may actually get him more support. And the liberals won't have enough to be motivated to turn out in opposition, in effect causing another 2004. This isn't like Bork, where the Democrats can sit back and watch the guy dig his own grave. Heck, if Scalia was able to get by a Democrat held Senate, this guy should have little difficulty. So yeah. Oh boy.
John G. Roberts Jr. Washington Area local, Roman Catholic, wife, 2 kids. 50 years old. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts)
Ok, what do we have here?
3 times nominated for the District Court of Appeals, passed over twice by the Senate.
Shiney, you're right, this guy has a lot of credentials. 39 cases in front of the Supreme Court. Harvard Law School. Clerked for Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly, and then for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist. (Statement on Robert's 2003 Hearing Senator Orrin Hatch http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=739&wit_id=51)
He apparently has "uncommonly well-written" briefs and his systematic and thorough preparation for oral argument." (http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/roberts.htm)
Apparently he was part of the Bush-Cheney litigation team during Bush v. Gore. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html)
Political donations! He's a solid Republican, having donated only to Republicans since records began being kept in 1980. He's donated numerous times since 1993 to the HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE and Peter Rusthoven and Peter Fitzgerald. And Mr. Bush and Mr. Lugar (Senate Foreign Relations Chairman R-IN). (http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_G_Roberts.php)
The People For the American Way see blood. He doesn't seem to support the Lemon test as he advocates the allowing of prayer at education activities. Argues to expand Marsh v. Chambers into a new establishment clause test (the one that allowed Senate prayer). He also ruled in the Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., commonly known as the girl-who-ate-a-french-fry-on-the-metro case, where he stated that it was allowable for the police to have different procedures in dealing with juveniles and adults (on first offense adults would receive a warning, juveniles would be arrested). Brings up questions under 5th and 4th Amendment, personal freedoms and liberties. (http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf)
Also was involved in a case trying to criminalize flag burning, against the Texas v. Johnson precedent. (more details in pfaw brief) (http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=18795&c=316)
Sometimes alleged to be on the side of business. However, he was also a lawyer on the 19-state anti-monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. (http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/roberts.htm)
Apparently rather hated by pro-choice groups. However, I have yet to find any records of him saying that he was against abortion itself, but it seems that he is going for the constitutional basis from Roe v. Wade. As Solicitor General he said that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he 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.” (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/facts/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=1916)
Won the case Rust v. Sullivan, where he argued that doctors receiving federal money did not have to talk to their patients about abortion. However, one should note that he argued this case as deputy to Solicitor General Starr, so it may not have been his opinion per se. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601049.html?nav=hcmodule)
Not a Sierra Club guy either. Argued for mountaintop removal mining in Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association, and against the individual's right to sue the federal government over environmental regulation violations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts).
Hm... so overall, though he's solidly a conservative, he isn't quite a firebrand neoconservative along the lines of DeLay or Santorum, he's not a paleoconservative along the lines of Bork or Buchanan, so he's not going to go down in flames during confirmations. The thing is, with a guy like this, it's hard to attack him. He's apparently a friendly, polite guy, and he's already stood up to the last judicial hearing he had, where he got over 70 questions (see the Hatch note).
I can't say I support him, but I do admit he's better than a lot of the other possible choices that were listed. He has the skills needed to intrepret laws and the constitution, the question is whether or not his personal biases will kick in to influence that.
Politically, Bush has made a great choice. A guy with charisma, charm, and an everyday American kind of image. The Democrats... are rather screwed. The liberals have been saving their political capital for months so that they can fight an grueling battle over the Supreme Court nominations, but now... this spells trouble. Attacking Roberts while maintaining public support would be rather hard, because most of the attacks would be along the lines of personal liberties/freedoms, constitutionality arguments which can easily alienate the public. And given the strong neoconservative swing in political opinion, his standings on abortion and prayer, though constitutionally questionable, may actually get him more support. And the liberals won't have enough to be motivated to turn out in opposition, in effect causing another 2004. This isn't like Bork, where the Democrats can sit back and watch the guy dig his own grave. Heck, if Scalia was able to get by a Democrat held Senate, this guy should have little difficulty. So yeah. Oh boy.