The president’s choice of John Roberts seems to fulfill his pledge to choose a “fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and values.” Politically, this is one of Bush’s better moments. He defied expectations and his worst instincts — by consulting Congress (including most of the Senate’s top Democrats) and by picking someone who could provide a national consensus rather than ignite a partisan firestorm.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
22 Comments
I’m impressed. See, liberals have no problem admitting when the Prez does something smart. Problem is, we don’t have many of these moments :D
Randy? Is that you?
I couldn’t aggree more! Roberts in my opinion is the best either side could hope for.
Seems like a very fine and honorable man.
Shumer, however, will never be happy. We are going to see exactly how small and petty the dems on the judicial committee are.
Hank
Yeah, Roberts is a solid pick.
And I agree: picking Roberts was one of Bush’s finest moments, by my count anyway (fwTw).
It looks like Ann Coulter isn’t very happy with Bush’s pick.http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66
As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that ‘Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…
http://www.naral.org/
“Although his name did not appear on the briefs, three sources who were personally aware of Judge Roberts’ role said he gave Republican 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.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestne...
Roberts ruled AGAINST American veterans who had been tortured by Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. They won a 1 billion dollar judgment against the Iraq government, which the Bushiviks wanted to absolve the new gov’t of when they overthrew the old Iraqi gov’t. Roberts ruled in favor of Bush and against the veterans.
http://www.acsblog.org/cat-judicial-nominations.html*****Other than that, he’s great . . .
Well… anybody both extremes hate this much can’t be all bad!
Extreme?
Ann Coulter said that we should invade their countries, take over Middle Eastern oilfields and forcibly convert them to Christianity.
That’s not extremism . . . that’s insanity.
Yeah, but she’s HOT!!! heh, heh.
Randy surrenders :-)
I do not understand Randy’s acceptance of this guy.His scant judicial record and membership in two far right wing organzations should sound alarm bells.What we do know is that this nominee has voiced opinion against the Endangered Species Act, Roe V Wade, and various worker rights protections.In short, this nominee is typical of bush. He stands for running over the environment, women, and workers all so that the greedy can get richerThe Dems must stand strong! This nomination must be delayed as long as possible and when it reaches the floor of the Senate it must be fiibustered. If the Republiclans play the nuclear option and attempt to kill the filibuster, then the Dems must shut the Senate down.This nomination must not be allowed to stand.It is time for the Dems to stand up and fight!
I beg to differ with those who hysterically oppose the Roberts nomination. I’m reasonably liberal and a lawyer to boot, so I’m naturally skeptical of Bush’s intentions. However, let’s judge Roberts by an appropriate standard here. Don’t look at cases he has handled and mine his briefs for telling language…that’s irrelevant because he’s just representing his client. Look for the man’s personal views. Personally, I am not troubled by Roberts…especially considering who Bush could have nominated. Roberts may be conservative, but he is not a Scalia or a Thomas. Roberts looks ok here.
Does anyone else find her columns hard to read?
Coulter that is
Echoing what sbp said–lawyers are ethically obligated to zealously advance the interests OF THEIR CLIENT, not their own interest. It is unfair to judge Roberts based on what he has said as an advocate for a client. Applying that logic, I suppose all criminal defense attorneys should be locked up for supporting lawlessness and crime. There is, however, relatively little public information upon which we can currently form any opinion about Roberts. Sure, he is an outstanding attorney, but his judicial opinions (all but two) were majority decisions in easy cases. Right now, it is impossible to tell what his views on constitutional interpretation are. Hopefully the confirmation process will be fair and impartial so that those of us having an interest can learn more about Roberts in a manner which is not politicized. But who am I kidding? With the idiots currently in Washington on both sides, this will be nothing more than the Salem Witch Trial and political posturing for the next election.
I find this guy deeply troubling on many levels.
He’s yet another member of America’s ruling elite, groomed at Harvard and seasoned with work in the Reagan and Bush administrations. His class pedigree sets off BIG TIME alarm bells in my head.
Frankly, one of Sandra Day O’Connor’s assets was the fact that she had risen through the state level in Arizona and was an outsider to the politicization of the Federal judiciary. Even if she wound up as a patrician, she spent her early legal career working at the plebian level. This kept her from being a rigid ideologue.
Roberts can make none of these claims. He’s been a legal tool of the GOP for his entire career, is completely and totally ideological, and is personally indebted to the Bush family. He’s been their nominee for various positions going back to Bush #1, and was one of the lead counsel in the Florida recount debacle. It’s the usual Bush family quid pro quo cronyism.
It will be very interesting to see how he does or doesn’t answer questions. The fact that he has so little of a judicial history makes the hearings more important than they usually are. This could backfire on Bush, since his goal obviously was to put forward a stealth candidate. And he’s done that: Roberts is photogenic, judicially enigmatic, confirmable–and Far Right as hell.
This should be VERY interesting; since there’s almost no way I can see him failing to be confirmed, the Dems will have to look at this as an opportunity to set the bar for the next SCOTUS pick.
Agreed, CF. He’s just this side of right-wing wack-o enough that Dems aren’t going to Bork him.
But a steaming pile of cow dung is still what it is . . .crap.
Roberts may be a right-wing whacko, but apparently not whacko enough for the far right wing. Sounds like they’re mad because Bush didn’t nominate Attila the Hun. There’ll be another opening soon. Maybe they can resurect Adolph Hitler.Also, conservative appointments to the Supreme Court have a nasty habit of turning out to be not as conservative as some would like.
Hey, if that nutjob Coulter hates him, that’s good enough for me. Cheers!
And Tara, don’t forget, Ann Coulter is HOT!!! (Too bad she’s such a nutjob, LOL)
Well, the Dems probably won’t try to Bork him, but they might try to Estradafy him.
Daggett,
Ann Coulter, ick.
I wouldn’t **** her with Nathan’s ****.
Evidently, Bill Maher would, though.
Everybody awake now? ;)
CF, to do what you just suggested, wouldn’t you need tweezers and a microscope?