Roberts Set For Supreme Court Nomination

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Oh, I agree and have often been in the same boat - one time I had to defend a crack whore who prostituted out her kid for drugs and that kid got shot in the dead during such an act

But, in this case, I am pretty sure those jobs were political appointments, which is different scenario than arguing under a retainer, etc., where your political affiliation is not as relevant. I mean Reagan, Bush I, and Rhenquist would hardly have employed a flaming Carter liberal to advocate their positions.

In the end, the appointment could have been worse a la P. Owens, who is just a *&^%^^& as far as I am concerned. So, we shall see what happens.

Well I guess they could've trotted out Bork again.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Well I guess they could've trotted out Bork again.

Bless his heart - I mean W has exumed every other conservative cadaver from the 70's

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

"But this take on Roberts puts some of his biggest boosters in a quandary. They praise Roberts as a brilliant, fair-minded lawyer with a perfect judicial temperament. But can that image as an open-minded jurist co-exist with also being viewed as a predictable conservative? "

No.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

that he nominated a white male who appears to be from the upper crust is an appalling move given that he had other choices that would make The Court, already heavy with white males, more accurately reflect the population of America.

Dubya specifically did this to pander to the conservative base. When Rehnquist retires in a year or two, Gonzales will get the nom for Chief Justice and the wacko right will have to shut their mouths. It's all games-playing par us-u-ale......

Originally Posted by sparky

There are elected D's with nads ? Other than Dean, Boxer, and Feinstein ?

Charles Schumer, Patrick Leahy, Frank Lautenberg (!!!), Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold come to mind.

Originally Posted by amber

WELCOME BACK!!! I MISSED YEW.

Me ****ing, too!!!!

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Nope.

Damn right, honey- you tell him!!

[strandinthewind]

Reaction to Roberts swift, disparate

(CNN) -- Early reaction to news that President Bush has nominated Judge John Roberts Jr. to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court portends a partisan fight.

Brian McCabe, president of conservative group Progress for America, opined that Roberts is "a man of great character who deserves genuine consideration and not automatic attacks and partisan indignation."

But a spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid was less enthusiastic, saying Roberts has "suitable legal credentials." Spokesman Jim Manley said Roberts, once a law clerk for Justice William Rehnquist, "needs to demonstrate to the Senate that he has a commitment to core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

Roberts sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A veteran appellate attorney, he has argued more than 30 cases before the Supreme Court, in private practice and as deputy solicitor general during the administration of Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush.

Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, described Roberts as "an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind, and a man of outstanding character who understands his profound duty to follow the law."

Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, commended the president on his choice.

"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court -- someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law."

People for the American Way issued a statement expressing dissatisfaction with Bush's recommendation.

"We're extremely disappointed that the president did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor," it read. "Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe."

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, questioned Roberts' judicial philosophy.

"Given the administration's track record of selecting ideologically driven, divisive candidates for the bench, it would be unsurprising if Judge Roberts embraces a judicial philosophy that is insensitive to the rights and protections that ... have brought us closer to realizing the twin ideals of freedom and equality," she said in a statement.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/...cts/index.html

[xxxmx]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

[B]"Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, commended the president on his choice.

"Judge Roberts is the kind of outstanding nominee that will make America proud. He embodies the qualities America expects in a justice on its highest court -- someone who is fair, intelligent, impartial and committed to faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the law."

frist: you are the kind of politician that makes this american UNproud. you embody qualities that are highlighted most effectively in dr. seuss' "you're a mean one, mr. grinch." namely stink, stank, stunk?

of course frist is happy. of course the first thing that came out of a republican mouth is how democrats will make this into a partisan melee. of course the majority of americans aren't going to be represented by this guy.

and ps sparky, you hit the nail on the head with the 'reptilian eyes and no lips thing'... i'm going to drink in bed.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by xxxmx

. . . and ps sparky, you hit the nail on the head with the 'reptilian eyes and no lips thing'... i'm going to drink in bed.

If I were there, I'd join you!

[sparky]

Originally Posted by xxxmx

f

of course frist is happy. of course the first thing that came out of a republican mouth is how democrats will make this into a partisan melee. of course the majority of americans aren't going to be represented by this guy.

Every time Frist opens his hole he reveals to more people what an idiot he is. Let him keep yapping. I propose a new definition of the word Frist, a la 'Santorum'.
Frist should be the word used to indicate the bothersome "snail tracks" men leave on dark sheets after sex.

"Ugh, I better change the sheets. That dude got frist everywhere"

and ps sparky, you hit the nail on the head with the 'reptilian eyes and no lips thing'... i'm going to drink in bed.

Thanks. I am going to drink on my porch, look at lovely downtown Los Angeles, and have a smoke.

[amber]

Originally Posted by sparky

Every time Frist opens his hole he reveals to more people what an idiot he is. Let him keep yapping. I propose a new definition of the word Frist, a la 'Santorum'.
Frist should be the word used to indicate the bothersome "snail tracks" men leave on dark sheets after sex.

"Ugh, I better change the sheets. That dude got frist everywhere"



Thanks. I am going to drink on my porch, look at lovely downtown Los Angeles, and have a smoke.

Since I agree, I will now do all of the aforementioned things, subtracting the Los Angeles part.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Dennis Kucinich.

How about George Miller? Democrat from Contra Costa County in CA...Amber should know about him, I really admire this guy

as for Roberts........I am really dismayed at the prospect of Bush naming ANYONE to the Bench...I cant understand why a woman has to constantly fight for such a basic right as autonomy over her own body, it just boggles the mind.
No other group, minority or otherwise, has had such a relentless battle for privacy/autonomy as women have had. What's worse, some WOMEN buy into the conservative religious ideology and dont realize they are cutting their own throats...*sigh* Im glad Im not a YOUNG woman today with such a bleak future ahead of me....

btw: I missed you too Jason! Im glad you're back!

finally: Sparky, you are a HOOT and I agree with you!

[strandinthewind]

That crafty Bush -

Toobin: Roberts '100 percent conservative'

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday selected U.S. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr. as his nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin discussed Bush's selection Tuesday night with CNN anchor Heidi Collins.

COLLINS: We have a name that we have not really heard much about today, anyway.

TOOBIN: He's been on the lists all along. He is an intellectual heavyweight. There's no doubt about it. He's is one of the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates of his generation. That is, by the way, a rather young generation, as Supreme Court justices go. He's only 50 years old, and he has a very limited record as an appeals court judge.

He has not been on the appeals court in the D.C. circuit for very long. The Democrats won't have a lot to shoot at, as it were, in terms of his record as a judge.

And he is likely to be a very good witness in his own behalf, because this is a very smart guy and he is used to ... arguing before the Supreme Court. It's not the same thing as sparring with the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it calls on some of the same skills and Roberts should be very well suited for that task.

COLLINS: This will tip the tables, though, if you will -- Sandra Day O'Connor being a moderate, as we have all discussed ... someone right down the middle. Now we're talking about a different number. What does that mean when we're talking about these cases that will be decided for this country?

TOOBIN: The first thing we have to learn is: What does John Roberts stand for? ...

He does not have a public profile. He's not [President Reagan's rejected nominee] Robert Bork, who had spoken out on all the great issues of the day. Yes, when he was working in the solicitor general's office in the [first] Bush administration, he signed a brief that said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but we don't know if he personally believes that.

COLLINS: Confirmation needs to happen semi-quickly. The term starts in October.

TOOBIN: He's a candidate who will likely wear well under that process. You know, in 1992, the first President Bush nominated him to the D.C. circuit, and in a bitter disappointment ... his nomination was never acted on by the Democratic Senate. ...

Things have worked out OK for John Roberts. He wound up being nominated by the second President Bush, took his seat on that very court in 2003. Now he's a nominee for the highest court in the land, and he's going to be a strong candidate.

COLLINS: Are you surprised by this?

TOOBIN: Not terribly surprised. We had so many names floating around today, but John Roberts has always been on the list. [He is] very accomplished [and has] very little bit of a paper trail. I think of what a conservative I know said to me who knows John Roberts well when I was asking about him.

He said, "He's 100 percenter." In other words, he's 100 percent conservative, but it will be very difficult for the Democrats to define him in some extreme way, because there's no paper trail, there is no documentation that will support that theory.

COLLINS: The main issue is going to come down to what?

TOOBIN: Abortion. I think [with] this, as always with the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade will be the central subject of discussion in the confirmation hearings. It's very likely there will be a lot of questioning of John Roberts about this brief he signed when he was in the solicitor general's office saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

He was representing a client at that point. The client was the first President Bush, who wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. The question will be, how much was John Roberts expressing his own views or just his client's?

COLLINS: Right, and of course this is an issue that is on the docket, the first major abortion battle in five years.

TOOBIN: There will be a parental notification case out of New Hampshire. It doesn't squarely take on Roe v. Wade, but it will surely be a clue which way Justice Roberts, if he becomes Justice Roberts, is going. And it's very likely we'll be hearing from him on the court come the fall.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/...bin/index.html

[SuzeQuze]

True Majority set up this great link to send a message to your senators to vote against Roberts.

http://action.truemajority.org/campa...emeCourtAction

You can edit the already written email. Even better, once you send it, you can print it out and it will be automatically formatted as a letter from you to your senator! Please send letters. Also send faxes and make phone calls, especially if you live in a red state but even blue staters need to make sure their voices are heard.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by sparky

There are elected D's with nads ? Other than Dean, Boxer, and Feinstein ?

Kennedy. Except he's such a self-parody that is often overlooked, but he does have some cajones.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by sparky

No lips and reptilian eyes. Looks like a Bushie to me.

They are vacant eyes too. :shiver: Maybe that's just my very biased perception.

[strandinthewind]

Dems Will Wait and See on Roberts

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

By Liza Porteus



While Republicans are praising President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Judge John G. Roberts Jr. (search), most Democrats say they are "keeping their powder dry" until Roberts' background is thoroughly investigated.

Roberts begins his confirmation campaign Wednesday to nail down Republican Senate support and overcome Democrats' fears that he would push the nation's highest court far to the right on abortion and other polarizing issues.

The president on Tuesday night named Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search). Earlier on Tuesday, Washington was abuzz with news that Judge Edith "Joy" Clement, declared by court-watchers to be a moderate conservative, was Bush's choice.

"I congratulate the president on confusing everyone in Washington," joked former Sen. John Breaux on Tuesday following President Bush's prime-time address.


After breakfast with Bush at the White House, Roberts, a former clerk to Justice William H. Rehnquist, was to meet Wednesday with Senate Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and others. He is then expected to make courtesy calls on Capitol Hill, visiting with all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and prepare for hearings, which could be in late August or early September. The Senate could feasibly schedule a confirmation vote before the court reconvenes on Oct. 3.

Frist called for confirmation proceedings that "treat Judge Roberts with dignity and respect" and lead to a yes or no vote.

"I'm also confident that the process will move forward in a dignified, civil way," Bush told reporters after breakfast with Roberts on Wednesday. "In my conversations with senators last night, we discussed how important it is that Judge Roberts get a fair hearing, a timely hearing and a hearing that will bring great credit to our nation and the United States Senate."

"We will provide all the support that's necessary for the senators to be able to make up their minds," Bush added.

Democrats reacted more cautiously, but there were no instant predictions of a filibuster.

"The nominee will have an opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make his case to the American people," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "I will not pre-judge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the only woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the new justice will be critical to the balance of the court, especially when it rules on cases involving congressional authority, a woman's right to privacy and environmental protections.

"I will keep my powder dry until the due diligence is completed," Feinstein said.

But others aren't being so congenial.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who last week laid out a list of questions that a Supreme Court nominee should answer, said that Roberts has an obligation to answer those questions.

"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy. I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee," Schumer said.

"I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is — particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court — will decide to answer questions about his views."

Added Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was one of three Democrats who voted against Roberts in 2003: "The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process."

Shortly after Bush named Roberts as his pick, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee circulated a revised set of talking points.

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of the inquiry," the internal document reads. "Justice O'Connor has been an inspirational figure to Americans. The Senate will review carefully the record of her replacement to guarantee that this person respects the rights and freedoms of all Americans as she did."

Conservative interest groups were elated, saying the president kept a campaign promise to nominate someone akin to conservative Justices Clarence Thomas (search) and Antonin Scalia (search). Liberal groups, meanwhile, expressed concerns about Roberts' views on abortion, religious freedom, environmental protections and the First Amendment.

"I'm just a little surprised that he's already subject to criticism, but this is America," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters outside the White House where he joked that the 60 or so opinions Roberts has written will soon be on the "best seller list."

Dems Looking For 'Mainstream'

With some of Bush's previous judicial picks for lower court positions like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, Democrats blasted the White House for not consulting more with them on prospective nominees. They said this lack of consultation led to the near-deadlock that occurred in the Senate when Republicans threatened the use of the so-called "nuclear option," which would have forced an end to Democrats' filibuster of those nominees they considered too conservative for the bench.

At the time, the "Gang of 14" senators came together to forge a compromise to avoid such showdowns in the future, and agreed to filibuster judicial nominees only in "extraordinary circumstances."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D- Calif., who is not a member of the Gang of 14, told FOX News that because O'Connor was the swing vote on many controversial issues, lawmakers will take a long, hard look at a replacement nominee to make sure he is more middle-of-the-road.

"There's no question about it — there's a lot at stake, so everything has to be out on the table," Boxer said before Roberts' name was released. "We want to make sure that the person who's elected will be from the mainstream of thinking … is in the spirit and tradition of Sandra Day O'Connor.

"I would predict that the vast majority of the Democrats in the Senate will say 'Let's look at this person's record, let's get our questions together on what we want to ask this nominee,'" Boxer added.

Specter, who noted Roberts' impeccable credentials after the announcement was made, had said prior to it that he wanted Bush to nominate someone who could keep the balance on the court.

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the centrist negotiators, said that simply being conservative is "no longer an extraordinary circumstance" as defined by the filibuster agreement and the president is in a good position to send a conservative judge to the Senate for confirmation.

"I couldn't be more pleased with the tone I hear in the Senate," Graham said. "Bottom line is that the president is in the best position since I've been here in 2002 to send a nominee to the Senate, who is conservative, who will be confirmed by the United States Senate."

Boxer countered that when issues such as contraception and abortion come before the Supreme Court, "I believe it's an extraordinary circumstance when these rights disappear."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Tuesday he expects the Gang of 14 to meet either Wednesday or Thursday to discuss the nominee.

Advise and Consent

The White House was quick to point out that the president had consulted with 70 senators during his decision-making process, including three-quarters of the Democratic caucus.

Republican Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas said Tuesday that Bush had gone above and beyond the usual process in consulting with senators.

"My guess would be that when historians write about this, there's been more consultation by President Bush on this occasion than ever before in the history of the republic," Kyl said.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., described a Tuesday Democratic caucus lunch focusing on the potential court picks as "very tempered."

"The climate was very matter-of-fact. There was no speculation ... I'm not aware of any real criticism [of the consultation process]," said Nelson, a member of the Gang of 14. "The president has been reaching out. Most people thought he was reaching out."

But not all Democrats were of that mindset; some criticized what they said was a lack of consultation at the level they hoped to have.

"So far, no one that I know of [on our side] has been consulted in the way we wanted," Schumer said late Tuesday afternoon.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also said he wanted more from the White House.

"Well, there has been some reaching out to Democrats but certainly not to the extent we saw during the Reagan or Clinton administration," Leahy said.

Reid acknowledged that the president "spent some time" talking with Democrats about whom he may nominate.

"Whether that has been [meaningful consultation] depends on who the president gives us," Reid said ahead of Bush's Tuesday night announcement. "If this is a non-controversial candidate, there's no reason we can't take August to read the briefs, wait for the FBI investigation, the Judiciary Committee investigation ... there's no reason we can't do hearings early in September."

Reid added that he recognized it's not the Senate Democrats' place to choose the nominee.

"You know, we're not co-nominators. That's not the Constitution. The Constitution ... has an advise and consent qualification and we're going to do our best to give the president that," he said.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said Tuesday he wants the nominee to "bring the nation together … rather than further divide us."

"To reach that result, consultation must be more than a one-way street," he said. "No one is suggesting that senators co-nominate candidates for the Supreme Court. But for members of the Senate to provide advice to the president, there must be a real discussion and a two-way conversation about specific candidates … the result will be a distinguished nominee who is acceptable to the vast majority of the American people and who will easily be confirmed."

Bush has said more than once that senators should expect a conservative nominee to put forward. He's also voiced his concern with so-called "activist judges" on the bench; jurists to whom he and some other Republicans have objected are those that have taken certain issues such as marriage and quality of life into their own hands, often twisting constitutional law according to their ideological bent.

"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds that have shared the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said Tuesday during a press conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

The internal memo passed around by Democrats and obtained by FOX News states that the "standards for a nominee are clear. Does this nominee:

- Protect the individual rights and freedoms of Americans?

- Judge cases fairly, with an open mind, and without a political agenda?

- Protect all Americans and not side with powerful special interests?

- Meet the highest ethical standards?"

While both sides appear to be arguing the same points, Roberts will likely find that the parties measure those questions according to different criteria.

FOX News' Julie Asher and Jim Mills and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163056,00.html

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If I were there, I'd join you!

Me too. We're all getting into bed together to drink.