Roberts Set For Supreme Court Nomination - Page 3

strandinthewind · #31 07-19-2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

. . . but sometimes she works for big money . . . .

Name one significant politician who is not beholden to big money

I submit there are few - maybe five.

amber · #32 07-19-2005, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Name one significant politician who is not beholden to big money

I submit there are few - maybe five.

yeah. I know. But she is tricky with it. Hey, don't look at me, my ideal politician is Peter Camejo...

For Feinstein - she's okay, but she's just to slippery with her stuff to please me. You think she's cool - but then - she does something that's not cool at all.
BTW -

WELCOME BACK!!! I MISSED YEW.

strandinthewind · #33 07-19-2005, 08:26 PM

This is telling (emphasis supplied)

Roberts Could Go Both Ways on Roe

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

WASHINGTON — John G. Roberts Jr. (search) was one of President Bush's noncontroversial picks for the appeals court. Getting there, however, was a long time coming.

First nominated for the bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, Roberts was never given a hearing nor confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate. He was nominated by the current President Bush in 2001, but the nomination again died. Bush renominated him in January 2003 and he was ultimately confirmed.

The Senate confirmed his nomination on May 8, 2003, by a voice vote.

During in winning limits on disabled workers' claims.

Unlike some possible Supreme Court (search) nominees, Roberts, 50, is considered low-key and has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues.

Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade (search), the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.

Roberts did co-write a brief that stated, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "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."

Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum. Some 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including Clinton administration officials.

The letter said: "He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.

Roberts was associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86 and then served in the first Bush administration arguing cases before the Supreme Court from 1989-93. The Harvard graduate — undergraduate and law school — clerked for William H. Rehnquist (search) when he was an associate justice on the high court.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html

__________________________________________________________________

I mean those jobs SCREAM conservative as they would hardly have gone to a liberal in any way.

sparky · #34 07-19-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

3. go ahead and get it over with and drill in Alaska because we will never move off of fossil fuel until the last drop of oil is taken from the Earth

I agree with the second part. I disagree with the first. I just want to live long enough to see us run out of oil. Just so I can think and say "I Told You So" to any number of people. Watch the entire world ignore the middle east or nuke them into extinction the second their oil is gone and we have no use for them. Oh, wait, the US will manage to save Isreal, somehow. The rest, gone. Bye Bye.

strandinthewind · #35 07-19-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

. . . You think she's cool - but then - she does something that's not cool at all . . . .

that sums up my view of most people, much less the sub strata known as politicians

Quote:

Originally Posted by amber

BTW -

WELCOME BACK!!! I MISSED YEW.

I went on vacation for a week or so. But, I am back and thankful I was missed and want to say I missed you as well!

amber · #36 07-19-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

that sums up my view of most people, much less the sub strata known as politicians

I went on vacation for a week or so. But, I am back and thankful I was missed and want to say I missed you as well!

Others were asking about you as well, just so you know it's not just me.
yeah. I don't really like any politicians, except, uh, three or so? But if I have to have them, i wish they were all like Boxer and Camejo.

gldstwmn · #37 07-19-2005, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Name one significant politician who is not beholden to big money

I submit there are few - maybe five.

Dennis Kucinich.

gldstwmn · #38 07-19-2005, 08:46 PM

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais

John Roberts

Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).

His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.

Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)

Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)

In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.

gldstwmn · #39 07-19-2005, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

1. limit abortions with things like parental notification with an escape clause for abused minors

Nope.

Mad4stevie · #40 07-19-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Perhaps true, but he got those jobs by being a staunch conservative, which I think speaks volumes about him

Eh. I think I could argue both sides of the fence in the political arena if it was a good paying job.

After all, I work a sh*tload of custody cases where many of my personal beliefs have to be shelved to represent a client. And lord knows, it is less than a good paying job . . .

gldstwmn · #41 07-19-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Eh. I think I could argue both sides of the fence in the political arena if it was a good paying job.

Ahem.

http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_po..._G_Roberts.php

Roberts, John G. Mr. Jr.
Bethesda, MD 20816
Hogan & Hartson/Attorney BUSH, GEORGE W (R)
President
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC. $1,000
primary 08/03/00
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LUGAR, RICHARD G (R)
Senate - IN
FRIENDS OF DICK LUGAR INC $500
primary 04/11/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1,100
primary 03/08/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $975
primary 03/30/99
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON FITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC $235
general 10/23/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON FITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC $500
general 06/25/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON RUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR $750
primary 04/15/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $975
primary 03/11/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON RUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR $250
primary 12/10/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON FITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC $500
primary 10/29/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $925
primary 03/18/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $925
primary 05/25/96
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $850
primary 03/02/95
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $850
primary 03/16/94
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $850
primary 03/12/93

Mad4stevie · #42 07-19-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Ahem.

http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_po..._G_Roberts.php

Roberts, John G. Mr. Jr.
Bethesda, MD 20816
Hogan & Hartson/Attorney BUSH, GEORGE W (R)
President
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC. $1,000
primary 08/03/00
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LUGAR, RICHARD G (R)
Senate - IN
FRIENDS OF DICK LUGAR INC $500
primary 04/11/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $1,100
primary 03/08/00
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $975
primary 03/30/99
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON FITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC $235
general 10/23/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON FITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC $500
general 06/25/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON RUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR $750
primary 04/15/98
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $975
primary 03/11/98
ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON RUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR $250
primary 12/10/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON FITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC $500
primary 10/29/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $925
primary 03/18/97
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $925
primary 05/25/96
ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $850
primary 03/02/95
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $850
primary 03/16/94
ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $850
primary 03/12/93

Yeah - I see that.

I was talking about the fact that I could work for either side - which means it is possible in the capacity of a lawyer to argue for a case that you do not personally agree with.

strandinthewind · #43 07-19-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Eh. I think I could argue both sides of the fence in the political arena if it was a good paying job.

After all, I work a sh*tload of custody cases where many of my personal beliefs have to be shelved to represent a client. And lord knows, it is less than a good paying job . . .

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.

gldstwmn · #44 07-19-2005, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Yeah - I see that.

I was talking about the fact that I could work for either side - which means it is possible in the capacity of a lawyer to argue for a case that you do not personally agree with.

No, I get your point. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear he ever has.

strandinthewind · #45 07-19-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

No, I get your point. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear he ever has.

No he has not. I mean every single article quoted above and the others I read elsewhere have all emphatically stated this guy, while brilliant, is a staunch conservative.

Interestingly, I think his legal brilliance, which by all accounts is there, will serve him well in the 99% of the other case The Court determines that we never hear about a la the meaning of the semi colon in section 403(G)(1)(b)(1) of the IRS Code