John Roberts, Jr to become a Supreme

[lookout123]

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.

Originally Posted by lookout123

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?

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...

[BigV]

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.

[lookout123]

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

[lookout123]

8 homeless people died of, of extreme crispation?

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...

[BigV]

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?

Originally Posted by lookout123

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

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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Happy Monkey]

No worries. I'm not a lawyer.

And my dad's not a trial lawyer.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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?

[lookout123]

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.

[elSicomoro]

Roberts is tentatively Sycamore-approved.

[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.