John Roberts, Jr to become a Supreme
 

CNN

time to do some reading. i don't really know anything about this guy? who does?

intial reaction:

My God. He's so young. :(

so was O'Connor. and i hear she didn't even have a penis, either. :mg:

Some quotes:

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

"I don't know how you can call the Rehnquist court conservative."


He's also the guy who sent a kid to jail for eating a french fry on the subway.

In a unanimous decision with several other judges.

and the young lady who was made famous in that case now believes the same thing, so he isn't entirely alone in his lunacy.

but i believe your quote was pulled from a brief he wrote @1990. in his confirmation for his current position he fell more in line with what you want, so you can probably relax a bit.

i'm more interested to hear his views on property rights, privacy, etc.

That is so huge. I know they're going to get bogged down on other sexier issues but if we want America to continue to be a special society people need to feel secure in ownership. O'Conner is out, somebody has to stand with the people against the state.

But in a previous confirmation hearing Roberts stated:

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. .....There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

source: The Houston Chronicle

Applying precedent takes on new meaning in the USSC. But I'm still waiting on more information.

i've heard Schumer and a couple of others complaing because we don't know anything about Roberts' personal views. i consider that a good thing. if he is required to pass legal judgement on an issue and he uses the current law and the US constitution as his resources then he is fulfilling his duties. if he ever steps up and says "i feel, or i think..." then that is not what he is supposed to be doing. judges should be able to make rulings that fit legal and constitutional parameters even when it rubs against their personal preferences.

You and I agree on this. I could almost accept even a Yankee fan (and that's saying a LOT). Personal views are personal, and professional comportment can and should be the order of the day.

However. Please correct me if I am reading you wrong, but I depend on the justices' "feeling" and "thinking". Because without that interpretation, without that human, personal reading of the law, there is only a static, lifeless stack of books.

If it were even possible to do this job without thinking and feeling (and I contend that is is not, and should not), why not just give the job to a machine. Hold the brief up to the light against a copy of the constitution and if it's not a match, the answer is no. Really. Not possible or desireable.

I feel confident that President Bush would agree with me on this point, and that's a rarity. I imagine he chose this nominee based on his understanding of John Roberts Jr's thoughts and feelings. I am utterly convinced that the vetting process included many questions to that end.

I may not agree with the nominee's thoughts and feelings about a given case, but using judgement (feeling and thinking) in the context of the law, is what it's all about.

Our society is undergoing constant change. That's the reason there's a court in the first place, to adjudicate a difference of opinion, of interpretation of our rules as they stand. We NEED interpretation. As long as we are a nation of laws (made by Congress, not the Court), there will be conflict, conflicting opinions about what's right, who's right about the law. And the decision makers must think to be able to apply the law. The law often lags social/business/cultural/societal reality. Until the law changes to match the way things are now, we'll need the judges in the courts to define how a law written yesterday applies to today.

A show of hands, please. How many people think that anyone who claimed, in public or in private, to be either neutral or in favor of abortion would be nominated by the Bush administration to sit on Supreme Court?

I have this feeling here like Charlie Brown must feel as he approaches the football teed up by Lucy. This time! This time I'm gonna kick that ball.




Maybe.




Maybe not.

This looks like an easy, predictable setup, a doable thing. An imaginable thing, despite all that has gone before.

Is this the triumph of hope over experience with this administration? Is this nominee conservative (a given) but fair (unknown), or will this be another trick to heave the court further to the right?

Why is a traditionalist SCOTUS a bad thing? It seems to me that a court should stand for established law and let the legislators do the "progressing". Everyone gets so worried that someone's going to take away their precious abortions, or not take everyone's feelings into account. In a way, it would be refreshing to have a machine take over the responsibility of judging the constitutionality of lower court decisions. That way you could be sure that the judgements were free of the influence of beltway cocktail parties, ego, and personal "legacy." Unfortunately, it would also erase the other human components of dignity, honor, and respect for the spirit of the law.

As if recent SCOTUS decisions have demonstrated those, anyway.

No one raised a ruckus over Ginsberg, even though she (OMG! WTF!) pulled the court to the left. She was overwhelmingly confirmed because, at the time, she demonstrated the backbone necessary to keep her personal politics off the bench. Of course, she's failed miserably at that task since then, but again, that's human nature.

Yes, nitpickers, there are holes in this post. But in a perfect world, judges would be seperate from all the bullshit politicking. That's all I'm wishing for, as impossible a goal as it is.

Well, needless to say, the man is extremely conservative. Probably right up your alley, Lookout! ;)

Here's a snip of some of the background on him put together by Alliance for Justice:

At Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts had a successful, high profile appellate practice. Some of his noteworthy cases included: Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky v. Williams,8 where, on behalf of Toyota, he successfully argued that the Americans with Disabilities Act did not require Toyota to provide a workplace accommodation to a worker who acquired carpal tunnel syndrome on the job;9 Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,10 where, on behalf of Fox, he successfully argued that Fox was not subject to ownership rules designed to prevent monopolization; Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta,11 where, appearing on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America as amicus curiae, he argued that Congress failed to make sufficiently specific findings to justify an affirmative action program for Department of Transportation contractors;12 Rothe Dev. Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Def.,13 where, also on behalf of AGCA as amicus curiae, he successfully challenged as unconstitutional the Department of Defense’s affirmative action program granting bid preferences to small, minority-owned businesses;14 Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association,15 where, on behalf of the National Mining Association as amicus curiae, he successfully used sovereign immunity doctrine to defeat a Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act16 challenge by affected West Virginia citizens to the state’s practice of issuing permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams...

More info can be found HERE

in each of those cases he took a client, argued their case to the best of his ability, and a judge or jury made a decision. are you suggesting he is unqualified for a job because you don't like the clients or the issues that he was paid to argue?

Elspode: i am personally against abortion. that doesn't mean i am going to fight to make it illegal. just because an individual has a personal disdain for a practice, policy, or procedure doesn't mean they will ignore the law and constitution to force their opinion.

BigV: obviously any information that we analyze will be filtered through our own experiences and values. that is unavoidable. i respect and want someone on the bench who doesn't rule BASED on those personal wishes. i want someone who will look at the issues and decide A) is this consistant with the rule book known as the constitution? B) is it consistant with the current laws? C) are the current laws consistant with the constitution? whether or not i like a practice can't change the answers to those questions.

Marichiko: i don't know much about this guy so the jury is still out. i know that Schumer doesn't like him because he doesn't know what his personal views are. that right there makes me like Roberts a little. the fact that he once argued against abortion is less important to me than his acknowledgement that it is the current law and it is consistant with constitutional rights.

That's actually a very interesting question. I suppose in theory, a lawyer could just consider himself a hired gun and argue the law either way, depending upon the need of his client. After all, criminal defense lawyers make big bucks arguing the cases of people they know damn well are murders, thieves, child molesters, etc. This hardly means the lawyer personally condones murder or burglery or playing funny uncle with a 5 year old. Still...

It seems to me in cases of civil law where an attorney has consistently made his reputation by fighting against things like environmental protection, affirmative action, and the ADA; you gotta think there may be a flame or two behind all that smoke. Just my humble opinion...

Y'see, this is why this country will prevail, despite the hysterical "film at eleven" reports to the contrary. People, not talking heads, or sycophantic focus group pimps, or the right wing whackos or the left wing weenies, people who understand how to get along, like l123, far outnumber the others. It's not about complacency, it's about decency. I could live next door to lookout123, regardless of the color of his ballot.



It's just too bad Phoenix is parked downwind of the exhaust stacks of Hell... What is it down there, 150 degrees or something? 8 homeless people died of, of extreme crispation? Day-um.

if the cases were found in his favor then others obviously felt the law supported his position - what's the problem?

the unofficial number is 15 but they are waiting on autopsies. i don't really think it is that much hotter this year than any other. there are a LOT more homeless people down here now though - so maybe the odds of finding a crispy one are just higher?

and you can be my neighbor anytime. as long as you don't mind flaming piles of dogcrap on your front walk, you freaking liberal... ;)

Thanks. :wink:






You mean, of course, that it's so unbelievably HOT there that dogshit spontaeously combusts on impact with the pavement, since, obviously, it's too HOT to grow actual grass, right?

The law is obviously subject to interpretation and argument. Otherwise, why would we have lawyers, right? I mean, you could just go down to court and represent yourself with your Big Coloring Book of the People's Law if it were that simple. The last I heard, most people still hire attorneys.

There's nothing wrong with being a very bright lawyer. I think the dude graduated Harvard cum laude or something.

However, if the man is given to a conservative interpretation of the law, this means the law of the land will inevitably begin to lean to the conservative side of things. If you think Jr. is going to nominate Supremes merely for their vast impartiality, you need to go back to the coloring book yourself.

Hey! If I become homeless can I come down to Arizona and share your air conditioning?

Don't expect too much good, after all, he is a scumbag lawyer.
Sorry HM....had to say it from personal experience. :mad:

No worries. I'm not a lawyer.

And my dad's not a trial lawyer.

Hey, has the Weatherman attempted to fry an egg on the sidewalk yet? That's standard weather-schtick up here, and I'm curious as to whether they pull that non-news crap on slow news days down there?

they don't even pretend to do news down here, but the egg frying schtick was given up a long time ago. it is depressing to everyone when it works.

Roberts is tentatively Sycamore-approved.

I have a question.

I imagine that the prerequisites for judge-ships (not only SCOTUS) in our country do not include being a lawyer, but certainly that helps, since that is the most likely path to a thorough knowledge of the law. John Roberts Jr. is a lawyer, not a judge, right? Here's my question. In the modern history of the Supreme Court, how many Supreme Court Justices were not judges before their nomination and confirmation?

I ask because I could not find anything like the answer in my brief search. Also, there's a lot of talk about JRJ thinks this and JRJ thinks that and "how would he rule?" Really, we know very little about his thoughts on a given subject if we base our opinions on the side he was arguing. I agree with the earlier posts that a good lawyer (which by all accounts, JRJ is), will diligently serve his client, and the lawyers personal feelings are largely irrelevant.

There is a very short paper trail of HIS decisions and opinions, unlike a judge from a lower court that may have a long list of actual performance as a judge to examine. Your thoughts?

i don't remember the name, but i do remember there was one Supreme who wasn't a lawyer, judge, JP, etc... it's been at least 10 years since i read about him though, so let me see if i can go back and dig it up from the recesses of my mind.

i do know that there is absolutely no requirement for a law background.

Nope. He's a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Judge bio page

Edit:
He hasn't been there long, which is why people talk so much about his lawyer days.

As judge, he did do the ruling in the case where the girl was arrested on Metro for eating a french fry. He sided with the idea that the government has the authority to arrest kids for eating on the metro, even though he commented that Metro police were being a little ridiculous.

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.

A truly anti-abortion judge whose goal is to overturn Roe quickly is Karl Rove's worst fear. It quiets their own political power and enrages the other side.

i agree UT. i feel the same about both parties. they don't really want to solve any of their "problems" because then they wouldn't have any rallying cry for their faithful masses.

Yeah...something's wrong with a world where you can only use enough force to stop someone from doing whatever it is that is wrong at that moment. You should be able to use enough force to convince them to change careers...

Of course. I'm not a pollyanna, but when RvW is overturned, it is just going to be one more step back to the 1950's, when abortions, homosexuality, incest and other juicy societal circumstances existed, but we just didn't talk about them. I don't think that will be much of an improvement.

Well, therein lies the rub, for sure.

CNN i haven't had time to really absorb it all, but i thought i would link it for your consumption. CNN has apparently gone back and reviewed a lot of Roberts' work from 1981-1982 and shockingly they have discovered he was a conservative :eek:

I'm guessing they still haven't found the affair with the illegal alien tranvestite maid who was a double agent for the Mossad and the KGB yet, have they?

He's making this process so difficult by insisting on being a conscientious jurist and an overall respectable guy.

Brilliant choice, not a point man, just a safe choice not to derail the agenda yet slide through congress. I'm sure W feels he'll have some more picks so stacking the court with safe choices is a logical tactic.

I've a feeling the french fry case caused a lot of parents to talk to their kids about eating on the subway. Maybe I'm too optimistic. :cool:

It's not exactly earth shattering news, but there isn't much meaningful coming out about Roberts, so here is CNN's newest peace. they think he tends to favor states' rights. or dislike toads. on or the other.

CNN

Well, going back to the French (freedom ;) ) fry thing. I still have the above concerns about the man which no one has addressed.

Because unwise and crazy aren't always the same thing. Irrational is having your 3.1415926535897.... and expecting to eat a piece of it à la mode w/tuna fish-pistachio chip.