Roberts Set For Supreme Court Nomination [Archive]

View Full Version : Roberts Set For Supreme Court Nomination

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:05 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html

Bush to announce court choice
Sources say nominee will not be 5th Circuit's Edith Clement

Tuesday, July 19, 2005; Posted: 6:09 p.m. EDT (22:09 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will announce his pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court at 9 p.m. Tuesday, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Bush said at a midday news conference that he has considered a variety of people, and "I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is."

"I do have a obligation to think about people from different backgrounds but who share the same philosophy -- people who will not legislate from the bench," he said. "That's what I told the people when I ran for president."

O'Connor, 75, was the first woman appointed as a Supreme Court justice, and has served on the court since 1981.

Her replacement must be confirmed by the Senate, and senators have braced for a battle since she announced her retirement July 1.

Speculation about a replacement focused much of Tuesday on another woman: Edith Clement, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, Louisiana.

But three informed sources told CNN on Tuesday evening that president would not choose Clement. One source said she was one of the finalists and confirmed she had met with Bush this past weekend.

Other names mentioned as a possible candidate include Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush's former legal adviser; federal appellate judges J. Michael Luttig and James Harvie Wilkinson, both of whom serve on the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and another judge from the 5th Circuit, Emilio Garza.

This is the first Supreme Court vacancy since 1994, when President Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer. President Reagan appointed O'Connor, who took her seat as associate justice on September 25, 1981.

On Saturday, Bush said in his weekly radio address that he wanted the confirmation process to be nonpartisan.

"The nominee deserves fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will make my nomination in a timely manner so the nominee can be confirmed before the start of the court's new term in October," he said in his weekly radio address.

The president said he has been working with senators on the nomination process.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met July 12 with four senators with key roles in the confirmation process: Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee; Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada; Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The senators said afterward that potential nominees were discussed, although Bush did not offer any names. They did commit to having O'Connor's replacement in place by the start of the court's new term in October.

Bush also met separately with Specter at the White House Monday evening. The senator would not divulge what was discussed.

Specter indicated on "Fox News Sunday" that he favored someone more like O'Connor, who was often a swing vote on the court.

Bush, he said, should be able to stand "above the fray" and make an appointment that would be "in the national interest" -- not because he was "beholden to any group, no matter how much they contributed to his election."

"When you have these delicate questions, it's helpful to the country to have somebody who is a swing vote, which maintains the balance," Specter said.

The nominee is expected to meet with members of the Judiciary Committee next week before Congress takes a month off.

The Senate is scheduled to take a recess from August 1 through September 5, meaning confirmation hearings likely will begin after Labor Day.

Reid said hearings might last a "good long week" if the nominee is not controversial.

O'Connor remains at work; her retirement is effective when her successor is sworn in.

There had been speculation that Bush might have at least one more opening to fill on the court.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced Thursday that he has no plans to step down and will continue to serve as long as he can.

"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."

The 80-year-old has been battling thyroid cancer since October and underwent a tracheotomy as part of his treatment. He endured weeks of chemotherapy and radiation.

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:06 PM

Who the hell is this guy? :confused:

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:11 PM

.C. Circuit Judge Gets on Supreme Court Short List

Tony Mauro
Legal Times
02-22-2005

John Roberts Jr., the newest judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was hanging back.

During a typical oral argument last week, colleague Harry Edwards fussed and fumed at the lawyers before him, while David Sentelle tossed out avuncular one-liners in his thick Southern drawl.

But Roberts, the third judge on the panel, was quiet. When he did speak finally, he was barely audible, politely asking a question or two, but never tipping his hand. To anyone watching for the first time, Roberts barely made an impression.

Suddenly, though, a lot of people are talking about this quiet judge, who just turned 50. The fickle spotlight on possible nominees to the Supreme Court if Chief Justice William Rehnquist departs has swung toward Roberts, and seems to be lingering.

In spite of Roberts' quiet manner, his credentials -- former Rehnquist law clerk, deputy solicitor general, top-flight practitioner at Hogan & Hartson and, in the estimation of some, the finest oral advocate before the high court in the last decade -- are speaking for him and winning fans. Add to that a brief 20-month tenure on the court that provides few targets for Democrats, and Roberts is emerging as a top candidate for the high court.

"He is well in the running, and he is superb," says C. Boyden Gray, partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr and chairman of the Committee for Justice, which fights for President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

"He's a great judge here, but I think we're going to lose him" to the Supreme Court, says a fellow D.C. Circuit judge who asked not to be named.

At a recent discussion before the local chapter of the Corporate Counsel Association, Roberts got considerable mention when a panel of Supreme Court experts was asked to handicap possible nominees.

"I think it will be John Roberts," said Latham & Watkins partner Maureen Mahoney, who is on some lists herself. "He has the brilliance, dedication and temperament to emerge as an intellectual leader of the Court," she said afterward.

Getting to this point has been a long and steady climb for Roberts, who was first nominated to the D.C. Circuit while he was in the Office of the Solicitor General in 1992. His nomination died, prompting Roberts to return to Hogan and build an esteemed and lucrative Supreme Court practice. He argued 39 cases before the Court in both the private and public sector, winning 25.

The current President Bush nominated him again in 2001, and again Roberts languished until finally winning unanimous confirmation in 2003. His pay cut is breathtaking: According to his financial disclosure form, Hogan paid Roberts just over $1 million in 2003, a combination of salary plus the payout representing a departing partner's ownership interest in the firm. As an appeals court judge, Roberts makes $171,800 a year.

ON THE SHORT LIST

With all the recent talk, Roberts has joined 4th Circuit Judges J. Michael Luttig and J. Harvie Wilkinson III and 10th Circuit Judge Michael McConnell on the short list of those who might get the nod, especially if President Bush replaces Rehnquist as chief justice with Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

But there is one way in which Roberts stands apart from -- and possibly ahead of -- the others. Luttig, with 13 years on the 4th Circuit, and Wilkinson with 20 have written enough opinions that it is easy to chart how conservative they are. McConnell has only two years on the 10th Circuit, but he has a provocative paper trail from his 17 years as a prolific conservative law school professor.

By contrast, Roberts, with 20 months on the D.C. Circuit, has few opinions or other writings that have attracted enemies. As a result, some conservatives have made unflattering comparisons between Roberts and Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whose short stint on the 1st Circuit before being appointed in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush failed to reveal Souter's moderate-to-liberal leanings on some issues.

Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.

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?

Florida personal injury lawyer Dean Colson of Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, who has known Roberts since they clerked for Rehnquist together in 1980, side-steps the question.

Colson calls Roberts "the smartest lawyer in America," someone who will "approach the cases with an intellectual viewpoint. I don't view him as having an agenda to promote."

But does that mean conservatives can't count on Roberts? "I don't know the answer as to how he would vote on specific issues," says Colson. "I would never ask him, and I hope he never tells anybody what he would do."

Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., a longtime Roberts fan and lifelong Democrat who worked with him for years at Hogan, says that if anyone can be both judicious and predictable, Roberts can.

"He respects the Court greatly, and would not ignore precedent," says Prettyman. "But if there's a loophole or a distinguishing factor, he'd find it."

Roberts himself declined to comment for this story, but during his January 2003 Senate confirmation hearing, he made it clear that he prefers impartiality over predictability. For example, he criticized the press for identifying judges according to whether they were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents.

"That gives so little credit to the work that they put into the case," he said. "They work very hard, and all of a sudden the report is, well, they just decided that way because of politics. That is a disservice to them."

NOT ALWAYS PREDICTABLE

So far on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts' votes have mainly fallen on the conservative side, but not always.

Last December, in United States v. Mellen, Roberts ruled in favor of a criminal defendant who challenged his sentence in a fraud case. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson -- yes, an appointee of the first President Bush -- dissented.

In the July 2004 decision Barbour v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Roberts joined Merrick Garland -- a Clinton appointee -- in deciding that sovereign immunity did not bar a D.C employee with bipolar disorder from suing the transit agency under federal laws barring discrimination against the disabled. Conservative Sentelle dissented.

But then there was another WMATA case -- known as the french fry case -- which some critics point to as a sign of a certain hard-heartedness in Roberts' decision making.

In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.

Roberts also displayed what some viewed as insouciance toward arroyo toads in a 2003 case, Rancho Viejo v. Norton. Roberts wanted the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider a panel's decision that upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation protecting the toads under the Endangered Species Act. Roberts said there could be no interstate commerce rationale for protecting the toad, which, he said, "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."

In another decision last June, Roberts went even further than his colleagues in supporting the Bush administration in a case that pitted the government against veterans of the first Gulf War. American soldiers captured and tortured by the Iraqi government during the first Gulf War sued the Iraqi government in U.S. court and won nearly $1 billion in damages at the district court level.

But once Saddam was toppled in 2003, the Bush administration wanted to protect the new Iraqi government from liability and intervened to block the award. Roberts, alone among the circuit judges who ruled with the government, said the federal courts did not even have jurisdiction to consider the victims' claim. An appeal is before the Supreme Court.

"These decisions are troubling in a lot of ways," says Elliot Mincberg of the liberal People for the American Way, a point person in any battle over Supreme Court nominees.

But Mincberg's criticism of Roberts may be muted somewhat by the fact that he worked with Roberts at Hogan years back and likes him personally. "He's a very smart lawyer and easy to work with, but there is no question he is very, very conservative," says Mincberg.

Another person who might otherwise be a critic of Roberts is a longtime friend. Georgetown University Law Center professor Richard Lazarus, an environmental law advocate, was a classmate of Roberts at Harvard Law School and roomed with him when they first came to Washington 25 years ago.

"John Roberts and I are very good friends, and I think very highly of him as a person, lawyer and judge," says Lazarus with care. "After that, I have to bow out."

Lazarus would not comment further, but other friends say the roots of Roberts' conservatism can be traced to his days as a Harvard undergraduate, toward the end of the Vietnam War. Seeing fellow students demonstrate in sympathy with Ho Chi Minh, one said, did not sit well with Roberts, who grew up in Indiana.

As unassuming as Roberts is, he also has a keen sense of humor, friends say. When Roberts was deputy solicitor general in 1990, he and Hogan friend Prettyman were adversaries in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, a case that turned out to be a landmark decision narrowing the doctrine of standing. Prettyman's federation clients claimed they had standing to challenge certain Interior Department land management decisions because they used nearby land for recreational purposes. Roberts argued that was not a specific enough injury to achieve standing.

Before the argument, Prettyman says, Roberts went out West to look over the public lands at issue in the case. "He sent me a postcard from out there," Prettyman recalls. "He wrote that he had looked and looked for my client, but couldn't find her."

As it turned out, neither could the Supreme Court. It ruled 5-4 that Prettyman's clients had no right to sue. Roberts' argument won the day.

http://www.law.com/jsp/printerfriendly.jsp?c=LawArticle&t=PrinterFriendlyArticle&cid=1108389946956

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:12 PM

John G. Roberts

John G. Roberts is nominated to the DC Circuit of the Circuit Court of Appeals, widely perceived to be the most influential of the appellate courts and a stepping-stone to the United States Supreme Court. As an attorney in the Justice Departments of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Roberts repeatedly argued for the reversal of Roe v. Wade stating that there was "no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution" for the reasoning behind Roe. NAF believes that the appointment of Roberts will weaken the protections of Roe and its progeny. Numerous cases impacting the accessibility of abortion could come before this circuit, including administrative decisions such as the availability of mifepristone (RU-486).

http://www.prochoice.org/policy/courts/nominations/roberts_tymkovich_oppose.html

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:12 PM

Thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Oh, HELL NO.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/angryfire.gif

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:14 PM

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:15 PM

John G. Roberts Jr.

"With impeccable credentials ... the question marks about Roberts have always been ideological. While his Republican party loyalties are undoubted, earning him the opposition of liberal advocacy groups, he is not a 'movement conservative,' and some on the party's right-wing doubt his commitment to their cause. His paper record is thin: as Deputy Solicitor General in 1990, he argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs. A line in his brief noted the Bush administration's belief that Roe v. Wade should be overruled."
— Washington Post, July 1, 2005

"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. ...

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

— Slate Magazine, June 24, 2005

"The official, who declined to be named, said appellate judges J. Michael Luttig of Richmond, John Roberts of Washington and Samuel Alito Jr. of New Jersey might top the list, which published reports say also includes several other judges and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. ...

"Roberts, 50, voiced opposition to abortion rights as a government lawyer. In 1991, he co-wrote a government brief in support of federal law barring federally funded family planning organizations from offering abortion-related counseling. The government argued that Roe v. Wade 'was wrongly decided and should be overturned,' and that the high court's ruling in the landmark abortion case was not supported 'in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."

— Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 24, 2005

"Roberts, 50, has seen his stock rise in recent months. Widely considered one of the top appellate lawyers to argue before the Supreme Court, Roberts was first nominated to the bench near the end of the elder Bush's presidency, and the nomination died in the Senate. He was confirmed two years ago with bipartisan support, but less is known about his views than those of other contenders."

— Chicago Tribune, June 22, 2005

"Many liberals think Roberts may be a sign of what's to come. They grew nervous with his dissents challenging the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act and because of his support of the White House decision to keep the Cheney energy task force records secret."

— The Village Voice, June 21, 2005

"In the meantime, Republicans close to the preparations say that the White House has assembled research on some 20 Supreme Court candidates, with more intensive research on a handful of the most mentioned, all federal appellate judges and all conservative: ... John G. Roberts Jr. of the District of Columbia ... "

— The New York Times, June 20, 2005

"White House officials have prepared for the prospect by culling long lists of possible candidates, poring through old cases and weighing a variety of factors from judicial philosophy to age. Bush and his inner circle have had tightly held deliberations and no one can say for sure whom he might pick for chief justice, but outside advisers to the White House believe the main candidates are federal appeals Judges John G. Roberts ... "

— The Washington Post, June 19, 2005

"A former Rehnquist clerk has also been mentioned as a possible court nominee. John G. Roberts, who has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003, was one of President Bush's least contentious picks for the bench. ...

"Roberts, 50, 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."

— Associated Press, June 18, 2005

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsactivism/fean-050620-supreme-court.xml#roberts

Mad4stevie

07-19-2005, 07:17 PM

Thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Oh, HELL NO.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/angryfire.gif

Roberts on Roe

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

From:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:18 PM

Jesus H. Christ. This is going to be a problem.

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:18 PM

Roberts on Roe

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

From:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/

Beat me to the puch :xoxo: :xoxo: :D :wavey:

I do think, however, he was full of shiitte when he said that. I think this because although he may not have a problem with it personally, who the hell cares as he has openly advocated for its outright reversal in the past. I judge on actions not rhetoric.

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:19 PM

Jesus H. Christ. This is going to be a problem.

Well, let's hope we see the set of nads the D's purport to have.

My guess is he will be confirmed by "the seven" and that is ashame.

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:20 PM

Beat me to the puch :xoxo: :xoxo: :D :wavey:

I do think, however, he was full of shiitte when he said that.

Based on your post above Heather's, I would have to agree. Nominate a fundie, take the heat off Rove. It's okay. We can multi task.

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:21 PM

Well, let's hope we see the set of nads the D's purport to have.

My guess is he will be confirmed by "the seven" and that is ashame.

He's a Craaaaaacker!

Mad4stevie

07-19-2005, 07:24 PM

With strong conservative credentials but a slim paper record, D.C. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr. is well respected by many Washington insiders, both conservative and liberal, but is less familiar to a broader conservative constituency. In 1990, as deputy solicitor general, Roberts was the lead lawyer in a case in which the government argued that Roe should be overturned. He has not dealt with the abortion issue while on the bench.

Jason, you know as well as I how often briefs are written from a client's viewpoint on the law and do not necessarily reflect our own personal views. Lawyers are paid to represent their client's viewpoint on the law; I don't think it is fair to pigeonhole him based on some line written in a brief over 10 years ago. :shrug:

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:24 PM

He's a Craaaaaacker!

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.

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 07:25 PM

Jason, you know as well as I how often briefs are written from a client's viewpoint on the law and do not necessarily reflect our own personal views. Lawyers are paid to represent their client's viewpoint on the law; I don't think it is fair to pigeonhole him based on some line written in a brief over 10 years ago. :shrug:

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

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:28 PM

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.

Yep. This is an all W move. :distress: I at least thought if it wasn't a woman it would be an Hispanic.

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:34 PM

In another decision last June, Roberts went even further than his colleagues in supporting the Bush administration in a case that pitted the government against veterans of the first Gulf War. American soldiers captured and tortured by the Iraqi government during the first Gulf War sued the Iraqi government in U.S. court and won nearly $1 billion in damages at the district court level.

But once Saddam was toppled in 2003, the Bush administration wanted to protect the new Iraqi government from liability and intervened to block the award. Roberts, alone among the circuit judges who ruled with the government, said the federal courts did not even have jurisdiction to consider the victims' claim. An appeal is before the Supreme Court.

This is sickening.

sparky

07-19-2005, 07:37 PM

Well, let's hope we see the set of nads the D's purport to have.

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

sparky

07-19-2005, 07:39 PM

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.

At least he looks like what he most likely is. This is more honest than the nomination a black or latin female with the heart Jesse Helms. That is what I was expecting.

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:40 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601049_2.html

He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election ...

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:41 PM

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

I guess we'll see.

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:43 PM

<img src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/07/16/PH2005071601053.jpg">

He looks like Frank Burns in MASH.

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 07:48 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050719/us_nm/bush_court_dc_23

Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

"It helps take Rove off the front pages for a week," one Republican strategist said.

sparky

07-19-2005, 07:54 PM

<img src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/07/16/PH2005071601053.jpg">

He looks like Frank Burns in MASH.

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

amber

07-19-2005, 07:57 PM

No lips and reptilian eyes. Looks like a Bushie to me.
Thank you. Note also, his resemblance to the creepy knife hands guy from terminator 2 and The Faculty (alien coach).

amber

07-19-2005, 08:00 PM

There are elected D's with nads ? Other than Dean, Boxer, and Feinstein ?
Feinstein's nads are fake. Sometimes she uses them to give lucrative gov't contracts to her developer husband. Sometimes she also uses them to help her keep her balance while she is straddling the Middle of the Road. Thumbs down.

sparky

07-19-2005, 08:08 PM

Feinstein's nads are fake. Sometimes she uses them to give lucrative gov't contracts to her developer husband. Sometimes she also uses them to help her keep her balance while she is straddling the Middle of the Road. Thumbs down.

I have been following her for decades, and overall I do like her. It seems she has been less ballsy lately because she wants to keep her job. Which is silly, considering her constituency. I still remember her as a lone voice for us homos a loooong time ago. Sparky is loyal, if nothing else.

amber

07-19-2005, 08:15 PM

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 08:20 PM

I have been following her for decades, and overall I do like her. It seems she has been less ballsy lately because she wants to keep her job. Which is silly, considering her constituency. I still remember her as a lone voice for us homos a loooong time ago. Sparky is loyal, if nothing else.

I have no problems with her, Boxer, or Dean (esp. Dean) - then again, I am far more of a moderate than most around here in that I think it is okay to:

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

2. own a gun as long as that ownership is heavily regulated

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 :eek:

I also think Roe and its progeny are legally incorrect as the US Const. really does not specifically give The Court the authority to create rights - having said that, I am not complaining too loudly about them mostly illegal or at least unsubstantiated new rights :cool:

Oh Well, the confirmation ought to be interesting :cool:

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 08:21 PM

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

Name one significant politician who is not beholden to big money :shrug: I submit there are few - maybe five.

amber

07-19-2005, 08:25 PM

Name one significant politician who is not beholden to big money :shrug: 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... :D
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. :xoxo:

strandinthewind

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

07-19-2005, 08:27 PM

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 :eek:

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

07-19-2005, 08:27 PM

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

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

BTW -

WELCOME BACK!!! I MISSED YEW. :xoxo:

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

07-19-2005, 08:34 PM

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

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!
:xoxo:
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. :woohoo:

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 08:40 PM

Name one significant politician who is not beholden to big money :shrug: I submit there are few - maybe five.

Dennis Kucinich.

gldstwmn

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

07-19-2005, 08:47 PM

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

Nope. :distress:

Mad4stevie

07-19-2005, 08:51 PM

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

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

07-19-2005, 08:56 PM

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_political_donations/John_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

07-19-2005, 08:59 PM

Ahem.

http://www.newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_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

07-19-2005, 09:10 PM

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 :eek:

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

07-19-2005, 09:19 PM

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

07-19-2005, 09:22 PM

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 :eek:

gldstwmn

07-19-2005, 09:23 PM

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 :eek:

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. :laugh:

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 09:26 PM

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

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

The Tower

07-19-2005, 09:28 PM

"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.

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......

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.

WELCOME BACK!!! I MISSED YEW. :xoxo:
Me ****ing, too!!!!

Nope. :distress:
Damn right, honey- you tell him!! :xoxo:

strandinthewind

07-19-2005, 09:36 PM

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/07/19/scotus.reacts/index.html

xxxmx

07-19-2005, 09:49 PM

[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

07-19-2005, 09:52 PM

. . . 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

07-20-2005, 12:41 AM

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

07-20-2005, 12:46 AM

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

07-20-2005, 06:09 AM

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! :xoxo:

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

strandinthewind

07-20-2005, 06:47 AM

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/07/19/otsc.toobin/index.html

SuzeQuze

07-20-2005, 08:13 AM

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

http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/SupremeCourtAction

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

07-20-2005, 08:15 AM

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

07-20-2005, 08:16 AM

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. :shrug:

strandinthewind

07-20-2005, 08:25 AM

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

07-20-2005, 08:28 AM

If I were there, I'd join you!

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

dudden22

07-20-2005, 01:30 PM

This country just keeps getting worse. :distress: :distress:

strandinthewind

07-20-2005, 03:56 PM

emphasis and commentary supplied:

Roberts demonstrates conservative credentials

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John G. Roberts has demonstrated strong backing for Bush administration policies, ruling against Geneva Conventions protections for detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in favor of keeping Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force records secret.

Roberts' record as a federal appeals court judge is short but clear, and he has a trail of solid conservative credentials dating back to the administration of President Bush's father.

Abortion rights groups say Roberts in a 1991 case tried to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, during his days as a lawyer in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Roberts helped 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 the appeals court 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."

The brief that Roberts helped write in the 1991 case, Rust v. Sullivan, is "the obvious shot coming out of the box" against the nominee, said University of Chicago law school professor Dennis Hutchinson.

Hutchinson said the obvious defense for helping write the brief is that "I was representing the government and that's what lawyers do -- represent their clients."

Roberts voted with a unanimous three-member appeals court panel last Friday that put Bush's military tribunals in the war on terror back on track, clearing the way for the Pentagon to resume trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda and its members, so a former driver for Osama bin Laden does not have a right to its provisions, Judge A. Raymond Randolph said in an opinion joined by Roberts. [ Like it or not, they are correct here - the GC does not apply to Al-Q because Al-Q is not an army in a uniform representing a country, etc. I do think, however, that the US should have taken the higher road and treated these people with full protection granted to a nation's army under the GC ]

Lawyers representing the detainee complained that the ruling in which Roberts joined "is contrary to 200 years of constitutional law." [ They are legally wrong and they know it ]

Roberts issued a dissent in a preliminary decision against the Bush administration's efforts to keep secret records of Cheney's energy task force. Roberts was in the minority when the court voted 5-3 to deny the Bush administration's request for a rehearing. However, the Supreme Court upheld the administration position on a 7-2 vote and the appeals court subsequently implemented the Supreme Court decision with an 8-0 vote. [ Can you say LAPDOG - there is absolutely NO reason Cheney's crooked brother in law deals should be kept secret - none whatsoever ]

Roberts is a member of the conservative Federalist Society, which has influenced Bush's judicial picks. [ The Federalist Society is not per se far right wing conservative as almost every Federal Judge I can think of is in it, though I suspect the vast majority of its active members are conservative ]

Bush called him "one of best legal minds of his generation." [ Pretty much all sources agree on this - I could find no one in the know who will comment against this guy's personable nature and legal intellect ]

Roberts is a familiar face at the Supreme Court, where he clerked for then-associate Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist and later argued many cases, both for the government and as a private lawyer. He was associate counsel to President Reagan from 1982-86 and served as principal deputy solicitor general in the administration of the first President Bush from 1989-93 before returning to private practice. [ This shrieks conservative political appointee and this IMO is the most damning thing for people who want the right to privacy upheld ]

As a private lawyer, the Buffalo, New York, native represented Toyota at the Supreme Court, winning limits on disabled workers' claims. [ He was representing a client and in many ways and IMO he was correct in this - though certainly not in all - comp. sucks IMO and is greatly abused - I mean when a person can get several hundred thousand tax free dollars for a minor injury and then return to work a few years later - well that just is not right IMO ]

He also joined in a decision last year to throw out a $959 million judgment for U.S. prisoners of war who say they were tortured by the Iraqi military during the 1991 Gulf War, ruling that Congress never authorized such lawsuits against foreign governments. [ From what I have seen Congress, not Roberts, was the culprit here, though I have not read all the facts ]

Liberals are unhappy with a number of his decisions, though he has not always stayed on a narrowly conservative path.

At the appeals court, he won hearings for welfare recipients whose benefits had been terminated.

To liberals' dismay, Roberts issued a dissent in a case involving the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act. The group People for the American Way said Roberts' dissent indicated he may be ready to join the ranks of right-wing conservative judges who seek to severely limit congressional authority to protect the environment.

Supreme Court historian David Garrow of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, said that while Roberts is a conservative, he is not in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"I do not think it moves the court at all," Garrow said. [ I agree as really only three Justices as of now want to overrule Roe and the right to provacy cases and one of those really might not do it if pushed ]

On the other hand, University of Chicago law professor David A. Strauss thinks Roberts will alarm Democrats because of his reputation as a conservative.

As an example, Strauss pointed to a brief Roberts wrote stating public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected. Roberts authored the brief while working with the solicitor general's office, under Kenneth Starr, on behalf of the first Bush administration. [ Again, that was advocacy on behalf of a client and that is a minor issue on the whole church and state sep. issue IMO ]

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/20/scotus.legal.roberts.ap/index.html
______________________________________________________

In the end, I think this guy is a religious conservative and I do not trust him. I would rather not have him on The Court and hope the D's fight him, which they probably will not. However, he is far from the worst thing that could have been nominated given the far religious right crazies that are in vogue right now.

SuzeQuze

07-20-2005, 03:59 PM

This country just keeps getting worse. :distress: :distress:

Hop in bed, here's a drink. It will get better, I just wish it were sooner. Call your senators!

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 05:06 PM

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

I was also thinking about Bernie Sanders but didn't have the time to do any research on him. Bernie's not a Democrat though. He's an Independent.

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 05:08 PM

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 05:22 PM

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

I watched Schumer and Leahy's full press conference on CSPAN after screaming at the television intemittently during Dumbya's 7 minute speech.
In summary what they said was that they don't like the fact that he's been on the bench for such a short time and that he'll have to satisfactorily answer questions.
I love Leahy's style and was especially impressed with Schumer. Now we just have to hope that they mean what they say.

gldstwmn

07-20-2005, 05:26 PM

This country just keeps getting worse. :distress: :distress:
If Rove goes down, along with others in the west wing then we've got a shot. The 2006 mid term elections are also crucial in that we need a Democratic majority back in the House Of Representatives so that we can restore some semblance of a balance of power.
There is always hope.

GypsySorcerer

07-21-2005, 03:45 PM

Roberts Likely Won't Face Filibuster
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts likely will not face a Democratic filibuster, Senate centrists who brokered a deal to expedite judgeship candidates said Thursday. "So far, so good," one Democrat acknowledged.

While the group of 14 Democratic and Republican senators said they were reserving official judgment until after confirmation hearings, Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record) said there was agreement that Roberts' resume doesn't show the "extraordinary circumstances" that would meet a threshold for a Democratic filibuster.

"There's no indications so far that there will be a filibuster, and I think that was the consensus in the meeting," said DeWine, R-Ohio. "But I think people are reserving the right to see what comes out of the hearings."

Said Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va.: "This is a confirmation process, not a coronation."

President Bush, meanwhile, said he appreciates the reception Roberts has received so far in the Senate, where the nominee continued meetings with individual senators Thursday.

"I want to thank the senators from both political parties who are giving Judge Roberts the chance to talk about his heart, talk about his philosophy," Bush said during remarks to the Organization of American States. "He is a person that'll make all Americans proud" if he is confirmed for a seat on the high court.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked later whether the president thinks there are enough votes to confirm Roberts, said it was too soon to get into the business of counting heads.

"I think it's way too early in the process to start trying to get into vote counting, or anything of that nature," McClellan said.

Some Democrats indicated that they don't see Roberts, a 50-year-old Republican lawyer-turned-judge as the kind of right-wing candidate they feared Bush would select.

"This is a credible nominee, and not one that — as far as we know now — has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn. Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Neb., said Bush had "made a wise choice."

Asked whether a filibuster was likely, Nelson said: "I think it's fair to say I don't see anything coming out right now."

"My sense is so far, so good," summed up Sen. Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record), D-Ark.

Meanwhile, an AP-Ipsos poll out Thursday said more than half of Americans, 52 percent, said they thought Roberts should have to state his position on abortion before he is confirmed, with women more interested than many in knowing his stance. Most of those surveyed — 59 percent — said they haven't heard enough about Roberts to form an opinion about him personally, while 25 percent viewed him favorably and 14 percent unfavorably.

Majority Republican senators have been unfailingly admiring of Roberts since Bush announced the nomination Tuesday night. Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the Judiciary Committee chairman, said Thursday that Roberts is "a non-activist judge, which everyone is looking for."

After meeting Roberts, committee member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said: "He's the type of guy you'd want to live next door to."

Roberts also was meeting Thursday with two of his biggest Senate critics, Democrats Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Charles Schumer of New York. They are among three Democrats who voted against Roberts's nomination to the federal appeals court.

Roberts will meet with the third, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's no. 2 Democrat, on Friday.

Even though Democrats are uncertain about Roberts' judicial philosophy, not a single Democratic senator has called for the conservative jurist's outright rejection. There also has been no public talk of trying to block a yes or no vote.

Other Democrats, however, said they weren't about to rubber stamp Bush's choice of a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court," Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday.

Abortion and access to internal government memos loomed as likely flash points as Democrats pointed toward the nationally televised proceedings, likely to begin after Labor Day.

Many Republicans members of the "Gang of 14," which helped avoid a confrontation over judges in May, have indicated support for Roberts.

"I think that Judge Roberts deserves an up-or-down vote, and I hope that the other members of that group agree with me," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a member.

Roberts didn't say much publicly Wednesday during a five-hour visit to the Capitol, except to praise the politicians who will vote on the first Supreme Court nomination in 11 years.

"I appreciate and respect the constitutional role of the Senate in the confirmation process," Roberts said after meeting with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was at the fulcrum of early speculation as Bush's likely choice, said Thursday that Democrats shouldn't go to far in their questioning of Roberts.

Gonzales, appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," said questions about his approach to cases are appropriate. "But to inquire as to how someone is actually going to decide a case, I think, is inappropriate for a nominee to answer," he added.

As Roberts paid called on senators Wednesday, a conservative group bought TV ad time in support of his nomination. Abortion rights groups, meanwhile, protested at the Supreme Court and the Capitol.

Progress for America, a conservative group with ties to the administration, unveiled the opening salvo in an ad campaign designed to ensure confirmation. It stressed Roberts' resume of academic and professional accomplishments and public service — first in his class at Harvard Law School, confirmed by the Senate to his current position and lawyer in two presidential administrations.

GypsySorcerer

07-21-2005, 03:49 PM

In the end, I think this guy is a religious conservative and I do not trust him. I would rather not have him on The Court and hope the D's fight him, which they probably will not. However, he is far from the worst thing that could have been nominated given the far religious right crazies that are in vogue right now.

Well, Republican nominees are often a coin flip. There's no telling how they're going to be on the bench. The scary thing is that Bush could nominate up to four justices. :eek:

strandinthewind

07-21-2005, 03:53 PM

Well, Republican nominees are often a coin flip. There's no telling how they're going to be on the bench. The scary thing is that Bush could nominate up to four justices. :eek:

To the victor belongs the spoils :mad:

gldstwmn

09-18-2005, 11:47 AM

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/09/17/reid_warns_of_filibuster_over_owen.html

September 17, 2005
Reid Warns of Filibuster Over Owen
Robert Novak reports Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "has informed" Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) "that Federal Appeals Court Judge Priscilla Owen will be filibustered if President Bush names her to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

"Republican senators are divided on whether former Texas Supreme Court Justice Owen is vulnerable because she underwent a filibuster for the appellate seat and was confirmed under the compromise agreement. Frist is known to believe Owen can be confirmed in the face of a filibuster.

"Republican Senate strategists believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the only possible Bush nominee to replace O'Connor who would not face a filibuster."

The AP says President Bush "extended invitations Friday to key Senate leaders to meet at the White House next week to discuss the O'Connor's spot on the bench.

dissention

09-18-2005, 11:49 AM

The AP says President Bush "extended invitations Friday to key Senate leaders to meet at the White House next week to discuss the O'Connor's spot on the bench.

"Key Senate leaders" meaning prominent Republicans. :laugh: