John Roberts, Jr to become a Supreme

[BigV]

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?

[lookout123]

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

John Roberts Jr. is a lawyer, not a judge, right?

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.

[glatt]

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

Washington Post Article

washingtonpost.com
Judicial Analysis Made Easy

By Marc Fisher
Post
Thursday, July 21, 2005; B01



You can follow the next two months of political thrashing and hullabaloo over the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, or you can get the whole thing over with by looking at how he handled a single french fry.

Thanks to a ninth-grader at Deal Junior High School who in 2000 committed the horrifying crime of eating a fry in the Tenleytown Metro station, we have as strong a look inside Roberts's mind as we're likely to get from weeks of investigation and hearings.

Ansche Hedgepeth was only 12 when a Metro police officer caught her, fry in hand, as she waited for her Red Line train. Under the system's zero-tolerance, no-eating policy, the cop arrested Ansche, cuffed her and took her in. An adult in that situation would have gotten a citation, but District law said minors were to be taken into custody until retrieved by a parent.

The french fry case hit John Whitehead's buttons. A Charlottesville lawyer whose Rutherford Institute fights for civil liberties from a conservative perspective, Whitehead took on Ansche's case, arguing that the government had gone too far. The matter wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Roberts's decision last fall shows him to be a witty writer with the confidence to show some heart. He seems pleased that after "the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," Metro changed its policy and no longer arrests young snackers. Roberts recognizes that Ansche wants the charges nullified because no one wants to have to say yes to that standard application question, "Ever been arrested?"

But Roberts quickly divorces himself from the human side of the case. He has no sympathy for the notion that Ansche was discriminated against because of her age. Roberts says government has every right to treat children differently, setting age requirements for voting, marriage, driving and drinking. Anyway, he notes, the fact that Metro changed its policy so quickly shows "that the interests of children are not lightly ignored by the political process." But Roberts rejects the idea that the court should weigh in on whether the police trampled on Ansche's freedom.

President Bush has always said he likes judges who take a limited view of their role, who stick to the facts without imposing their political interpretations. But that's all political rhetoric: Every case requires every judge to interpret the law. The question is what philosophy guides them.

At every turn in the french fry case, Roberts defers to authority. He says Metro's policy of arresting kids "promotes parental awareness and involvement" by requiring parents to pick up their misbehaving child.

Roberts may personally doubt Metro's arrest policy -- "it is far from clear that [the arrest is] worth the youthful trauma and tears" -- but he concludes "it is not our place to second-guess such legislative judgments."

There's the Roberts philosophy. He repeats it throughout the opinion: It's not the court's role to tell police whether an arrest is reasonable if the officer has probable cause. It's not the court's place to consider Ansche's constitutional rights if Metro has already changed its rules.

As Whitehead told me yesterday: "He's exactly what I would expect George Bush to choose. He's very deferential to authority, whether government or business. He's not a civil libertarian. He is a thinking judge and he sees Ansche's pain. But he's like the father that comes to whip you and says, 'This hurts me more than it hurts you.' He just doesn't see that the letter of the law only works when it applies to human beings."

The french fry case tells the story of someone much like the president -- a man who embraces the rhetoric of limited government but defers to and protects government authority. Roberts will disappoint both ends of the spectrum. He's neither an Antonin Scalia nor a William Douglas, justices whose personal passions bled through their judicial opinions, making them polarizing but creative and influential.

The reporting on Roberts describes him as a conservative Republican, but a single french fry reveals more about who he is on the bench: a judge who sees it as his task to separate the mess and emotions of daily life from the letter of the law.

[lookout123]

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.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lookout123

and the problem with that judgement is what?

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

[Griff]

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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

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

[lookout123]

Dammit Elspode, i'm really sorry someone fucked you over like that. that really really really sucks. 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.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by lookout123

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

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...

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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.

Well, therein lies the rub, for sure.

Originally Posted by marichiko

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.

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