Roberts has served as a DC circuit judge for two years. Sorry if I gave the impression that his experience has been only as an attorney with my earlier cut and paste. Two years on the bench is not sufficient experience to become a Supreme IMO, but apparently, there are no special requirements for past experience in the job description. Roberts was the judge who ruled on the infamous french fry eaten by a child on the Metro incident. Snip:

In Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,30 Judge Roberts wrote an opinion allowing state governments to arrest children for minor offenses authorizing issuance of a citation for adults. The opinion, joined by Republican-appointed Judges Henderson and Williams, rejected the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for eating a french fry in the D.C. Metro. The girl claimed that her equal protection rights had been violated because, under then-D.C. law, an adult in the same situation would only have been given a citation, while the police were required to arrest her since she was a juvenile. Rejecting the claim, Judge Roberts asserted that the D.C. law was subject to the most deferential kind of judicial review – rational basis review – since juveniles are not a suspect class and do not enjoy a fundamental right to freedom from restraint when there is probable cause for arrest. Judge Roberts concluded that the D.C. law was constitutional because, although perhaps unwise, it was “rationallyrelated to the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.”31 Judge Roberts also held that a recent Supreme Court case, Atwater v. City of Lago Vista,32 foreclosed the girl’s other claim that the arrest violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Atwater held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against arrest and detention for minor offenses, like seat belt violations, even where the maximum penalty for the offense is a small fine. The girl distinguished Atwater by pointing out that, unlike in Atwater, where the Supreme Court was principally concerned about creating a non-rigid constitutional standard that would hobble an officer’s discretion to decide, in the heat of the moment, whether to arrest or issue a citation, D.C. law afforded officers no discretion in her case and mandated arrest. As a result, the girl claimed, her arrest should be subjected to a reasonableness review, rather than Atwater’s blanket rule. Rejecting the claim, Judge Roberts concluded that “the most natural reading of Atwater” precludes reasonableness review whenever an arrest, including the girl’s, is supported by probable cause.

Here's a decent analysis of the french fry case, and what it tells us about Roberts.

Washington Post Article

and the problem with that judgement is what? he basically said that the cops were probably being dumbasses, but they followed the law, and further, the law was not unconstitutional.


i was reading some things about Roberts' previous confirmation hearing and it is now clear why Schumer has a woody for Roberts'. In the previous hearings Schumer kept asking personal preference questions (such as he wants answered now), Roberts repeatedly deferred, as is his right, and Schumer kept going and going until Roberts said, "now that is a dumbass question." everybody laughed. he went on to apologize and ask Schumer not to take personal offense, but "i've got a lot of experience spotting dumbass questions, and that is definitely a dumbass question". more laughter.

Roberts' made people laugh and no senator is likely to forget that.

The fry girl went to my Junior High School, and my sister was there at the time. The fry girl ended up getting detention on top of everything else, because students aren't supposed to stop anywhere on their way home.

make no mistake, i think the cops were dumbasses for arresting the girl for eating a fry.

Of course. I was just giving a little more followup info to add to glatt's post. Deal's principal was a hardass, who followed the a similar philosophy to Joe Clark (Lean on Me). He was a very good principal, but like anyone with that philosopy he occasionally would do something ridiculous like remove all the doors from bathroom stalls.

Thank you for the clarification, mari, HM, l123, all. :tips cap:

I think the french fry case is a good example of why Roberts might be the right choice. He's a stickler for making judgements based on law. He thought the whole thing was a waste of time, but knew his duty as a judge and followed through without regard to his personal prejudices. When he was a lawyer, he argued for his client, not for himself. I suspect that if, as a lawyer, he had taken on a case for Greenpeace, he would've argued just as stridently as he did for Toyota. Could be wrong, but I think he is incredibly self-disciplined about performing his job correctly and without personal bias.

He's nice and boring, just what is needed in the SCOTUS. I suspect Durbin, Schumer, and Kennedy will keel over from aneurysms trying to force him to reveal his political leaning on pet Dem issues, and he will (rightly) be mute as a stone.

I personally have no problem with that judgement. I applaud it.

In fact, even though Roberts is by all accounts a solid conservative, I have no real problem with him. I haven't seen anything come to light that makes me outraged by Bush's choice. I may change my tune if something rotten about him comes out, but with every passing hour, that looks less and less likely. A lot of people are digging hard to find dirt on this guy, and they are coming up empty. He's far from my first choice, because he's on the wrong end of the political spectrum, but Bush could have done a lot worse. He could have nominated a nutjob.

I second the whole post. In fact, I already said so in this thread.

On the question of experience, (if someone else mentioned it I apologize) he has argued many cases before the SC and was a clerk for Renquist back in the day. NPR also interviewed a friend of his who is an enviro lawyer. It seems Roberts argued a case for him once when he had a teaching comitment and won one for the regulators. That said, I don't have any idea what he'd do on the court. Is he bright? Yes. Competent? Seemingly. What sort of conservative is he, the big gummint type, the anything thats good for corporations type? The bow and scrape before authority type? If he's the W not really a conservative by any serious definition type we may have a problem. If he is the sort of conservative that understands government is currently over-reaching and would limit left and right wing intrusions, I'd be pleased.

Well, he assisted Jeb Bush in the 2000 election debacle at his own expense, if that says anything.

Having browsed through the discussions, I see that no one *does* really think that a person who either favored abortion or stated that they were neutral on the subject would currently find themselves as an appointee to the Supreme Court...

I'm not really even trying to start an abortion discussion, or find out who is in favor and who isn't. (For the record: I'm against it...for *me* and *my life*, but I'm against shoving my will down the throats of others in cases such as this. However, I would gladly shoot the fuckers who today smashed out my wife's car window and tore the shit out of the dash to steal the new stereo that I got her for Mothers Day. Gladly shoot them, and I'm dead fucking serious about it).

Judge Roberts concluded that the D.C. law was constitutional because, although perhaps unwise, it was “rationally related to the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.”

My problem is:

1) Where in the constitution does it state that the government should promote "parental awareness"?

2) How can a law be "perhaps unwise" while at the same time being rational?

3) Eating a french fry on the metro is hardly an example of hard core juvenile delinquency that must be brought under control.

Roberts was merely affirming the right of the government to use gestapo tactics against a 12 year old little girl. I have a MAJOR problem with this.

So, maybe we should nominate Robin Williams to the Supreme Court?

Dammit Elspode, i'm really sorry someone fucked you over like that. that really really really sucks. :rar: don't shoot them though, we would miss your posts while you were in the pokey.

and i do understand your concern about Roberts abortion position or nonposition. i would assume he is antiabortion. but that is only to be suspected - just as during Clinton's years no one would expect that one of his nominations be antiabortion. we shouldn't really expect an anti abortion president to nominate a prochoice advocate.

in the end though, if this guy holds issues up against the framework of the constitution and says Yea or Nay regardless of his personal preference then we are ok.