On July 19, 2005, President Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts to be Associated Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. If you missed the televised announcement video is available (via CNN), and the full text of the President’s remarks are available (via the Center for Individual Freedom).
The Harvard Crimson Online provides a biography of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. his time at Harvard and beyond. Most notable is the strong bipartisan support he has received when previously nominated.
The confirmation process produced a wealth of glowing recommendations. He [Roberts] received the rating of “Well Qualified” without reservation from the American Bar Association, the highest possible mark for a jurist.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was also sent a letter by a bipartisan group of 156 members of the D.C. Bar, all of whom urged Roberts’s swift confirmation. “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” the letter said. “He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.”
Walter E. Dellinger III, who served as solicitor general under former President Bill Clinton, even told the Judiciary Committee that, “In my view…there is no better appellate advocate than John Roberts.”
On the D.C. Circuit, Roberts has maintained his conservative reputation, although he has yet to weigh in on many of the divisive issues that come before the Supreme Court.By all appearances Roberts is an extremely solid choice – acceptable to Republicans as well as Democrats, and the word in DC is he will have no problem being confirmed.
As Underneath Their Robes noted in a humorous judicial beauty pageant last year, Judge Roberts, 49, with his “youthful,” “all-American good looks,” is the “JFK Jr. of the federal bench.”. He finished 5th in the voting last year, though with his newfound notoriety his hottie stock will probably be rising…
Special welcome to viewers of CNN’s Inside Politics and MSNBC’s Connected Coast To Coast (video). The story mentioned about the role of bloggers in the confirmation process is here, Bloggers Set For Supreme Court Nominee.
Quotes
- Hugh Hewitt – “John Roberts: A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.“
- MoveOn.org – “In nominating John Roberts, the President has turned to a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation’s highest court.“
Other Coverage
- Michelle Malkin is liveblogging the nomination and provides a thorough roundup.
- RedState has extensive coverage in their SCOTUS section.
- Bench Memos at NRO has team coverage lead by Kathryn Lopez.
- SCOTUSBlog has a law blogger roundup
Fantastic.
Not this means a hill of beans to the usual contingent of screaming harridans from NARAL, NOW, et al.
Harry Reid has already signalled that he is out for Roberts’ blood by backhanding Roberts’ legal resume and then demanding that Roberts’ “needs to demonstrate to the Senate that he has a commitment to core American values of freedom, equality and fairness.”
Reid knows that Roberts cannot answer any specific question about cases that may come before him.
This is the strategy behind the clearly psychotic Dem desperation. Screw facts, smear anyone that GW nominates.
feh
Hmmm.
As a solid conservative this is definitely not one of my preferred candidates. As far as I can see, this guy has the same basic background as O’Connor. I.e. nobody knows WTF this guys is going to do.
Just great. 25 years of effort. 25 years of donating to the goddamn GOP. Screwed again.
Now the people on FoxNews are talking that this candidate will placate the left and right (yeah F*** that!) and the next nomination will be the solid conservative.
WTF!
Someone explain to me why conservatives bother donating anything to the GOP? We don’t get Roe vs. Wade, we don’t get illegal immigration, we don’t get fiscal conservatism, we don’t get small government. So far we don’t get a goddamn thing.
F*** the GOP.
Hmmm.
Good. Let’s sink this bastard quick so we can get a real conservative nominated.
ed,
I feel your pain!
I am disappointed. Non-the-less a disheartening choice. With all the talk of a minority and/or a woman as a replacement and all the lip service diversity, he choose a white male. Well qualified, yes. A bold move to possibly find the best of the best, yes. But, still a white male.
I have no issue with his record or his credentials. Yet, I am disappointed. This nomination was an opportunity for the President to unite the country and not divide; he missed that mark. This was payback for the base and only the base. Sorry Mister President, for me, this is a disappointment.
I wanted Janice Rogers Brown!
Not quite at Ed’s level (yet)
But, still a white male. … I have no issue with his record or his credentials. Yet, I am disappointed. This nomination was an opportunity for the President to unite the country and not divide; he missed that mark.
Damn Bush for not nominating a token!
There’s one really big question in my mind–whether this guy is a true federalist, or whether we have more micromanagement and nanny-state decisions in store if he’s confirmed.
ed is kidding, right?
Team Lefty didn’t waste any time coming to the conclusion that Roberst son is a transgendered druggy Simply amazing.
quoting Hugh Hewitt:
Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here’s his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.
Full disclosure: Judge Roberts and I were colleagues in the White House Counsel’s Office in 1985/1986. A colleague of his from his Hogan & Hartson days, Dan Poneman, was a guest on the program earlier and a transcript of that conversation will be posted at Radioblogger.com. Poneman is a center-left specialist on national security issues, having served both the first President Bush and President Clinton on the NSC. Poneman’s enthusiasm for the Roberts nomination will be mirrored across official Washington which will have a very hard time summoning any energy to smear as well regarded and liked man as Judge Roberts.
Geez, ed…are you an extreme ideolougue or a moby?
…inquiring minds…
Ed,
We have to get someone in DURING W’s current term. Or more to the point, quickly.
Contrary to recent news, there WILL be another SCOTUS seat opening up before W leaves.
This one first, then the next one who sets the rest of the legacy.
Hmmmm.
“Geez, ed…are you an extreme ideolougue or a moby?”
I’m a guy who realises that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by “conservative” Republicans. Remember O’Connor? Reagan appointed her. Remember Souter? Bush 41 appointed him.
Look at Souter’s damn bio
See any words being repeated about Roberts? See anything in common?
Here’s the deal. Roberts doesn’t have a long paper trail or tons of scholarship. Nobody knows how this guy is going to vote. People are assuming that he’ll be a conservative and that he’ll STAY A CONSERVATIVE. But Souter showed that’s a damn foolish thing to think. And so did O’Connor.
So am I pissed off? Yes.
Why? Because I’ve been here before.
Welcome to the “I’ve been F***ed by the GOP, yet again” club.
Hmmm.
“This one first, then the next one who sets the rest of the legacy.”
Which means what? That we’ll end up with yet another court where solid conservatives are in the minority?
So someone explain to me what the GOP has done for conservatives that makes all the sacrifices, donations and activism worthwhile.
Go ahead and make a list. It’ll be a damn short one.
Consider the alternative.
I think it has been worth it.
Also,
Cornyn is strongly behind him, that means quite a bit to me.
Hmmmm.
“Consider the alternative.
I think it has been worth it.”
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the GOP has been talking about drawing back judicial activism by appointing conservatives to the bench for years now? What was one of the primary issues in the 2000 election? The 2002 election? The 2004 election?
And yet here we are. Why is Roberts acceptable to you? Because he might have an easier passage through the Senate. Why is that? Because Bush and Frist didn’t push to change filibuster rules. I’m still getting donation requests from FRIST, and yes it’s about those horrible judicial activsts and that he needs my money to combat them. So being less conservative is now an advantage. How about that.
Joy.
Move-on.org owns the Democratic Party. Conservatives are just renting.
And no, I’m not some damn stupid Moby. I’m a fiscal conservative who donated money to, and voted for, Bush.
So I’m not a Moby, but I’m evidently one damn stupid a**hole. That fact doesn’t lie.
Consider the alternative.
I think it has been worth it.
When Republicans act like they’re the minority party in congress, they’re counting on us to think this.
Hmmm.
“Cornyn is strongly behind him, that means quite a bit to me.”
Did you read that bio I linked to? Would it mean anything if I told you I grew up in New Hampshire? You know, Souter’s home state and in the same time period when he was a judge? Hell I supported him for the Supreme Court. Yeah, that turned out well didn’t it.
Oh christ. I’m going to bed. If I’m lucky this is all a bad dream.
If nobody knows what Roberts is going to do how is it possible to decide we’ve been screwed? Does that determination come directly from the psychic hotline? You reading tea leaves, Ed? I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt here and continue to support the right, people opting for the “all or nothing” program usually get the latter. You might get what you want from the republicans, you certainly won’t from the democrats. Even if you are right about being screwed I have serious doubts about this being the only shot at it. Besides, there’s always the next term in the White House and there are sure to be more justices retire, might as well do everything we can to see that it’s another republican choosing the replacement, unless you think that Hilary’s choice will be more to your liking….
Is it just me, or is this guy Frank Burns’ twin?
http://www.nndb.com/people/852/000031759/frank-burns-sized.jpg
I’m a queer 66% libertarian who thinks national strength is founded on banking insitutions and ecological health (IE agricultural output). In ’00 I voted McCain then Nader. In ’04 I walked precincts for Dean because his biggest funders were amateur lobbyists (instead of pros) and voted for Kerry over Bush because changing our PR in Europe could have saved $10’s of billions in Iraq II as we gather resources to fight WWIV against China. Most pols I could take or leave so long as they don’t accomplish anything ideological and don’t muck things up too much with incompetance.
The Wall Street Journal conservatives are greedy b*t*rds but I’m basically OK with their policies. And the way I gist this new guy, he’s a slap in the face to the social right and a big juicy BJ for the WSJ crowd.
If he’s really another Souter, well… a girl can dream, can’t she?
This was a safe pick for Bush. Ivy League background, no paper trail, congenial vibe … Bush apparently pre-vetted him on the Hill, so he’ll definitely be confirmed. Roberts IS conservative by any measure, but the irony is, the guy who nominated him really ISN’T, if you think about it …
I’ve been telling my conserv. friends for years that Bush will almost always disappoint you. He and Rove will set you up during the campaign and then pull the rug out from under you once he’s elected. Ed’s right, whether on immigration or spending, or Medicare or this massive nanny-state education policy or foreign interventionism, Bush is not actually a conservative — he’s Woodrow Wilson with a better election strategist.
(though I actually give him credit for defying the conventional wisdom and going for the white guy instead of pandering to Hispanics or women — I guess he’ll catch them on the next go-round…)
Face it, party people, your guy’s a Methodist — a middle grounder — who plays Christian conservative to win elections. Roberts will move the court to the right, for sure, so no need to sweat that, but Bush wasn’t about to risk his legacy to throw you a Bork.
Besides, you’re almost sure to get Scalia (shudder) as your next Chief Justice …
Looks like we had a little server hickup. Seems to be all better now…
Great choice!
Too bad he’s not from Rochester. 😉
If he is a Con. then the balance of the Court has shifted; which is good, and that is the real prize.
ReidBlog’s posts (July 20, 2005 01:34/01:34 AM)
Your interpretation seems closest to the mark so far. Bush is not dependably conservative (except for religious dogma which isn’t excessively strident) in the “classic Reaganesque” mold.
The selection of Roberts seems solid but I know nothing of his history. I’m sure we’ll get lots of spin as to what he “believes” in the coming weeks. Hopefully Roberts was selected on merit and not on old-boy Harvard networking. From the talking heads, I half expect him to walk on water (based on credentials and not deism).
This does seem like a milquetoast selection politically but only to the degree that it is not too polar. I do give Bush credit for selecting a presumed WASP and not reflexively fitting the color- or gender-coded peg of the day into the PC hole. That was a surprise to me and may actually signify some thought that he really did seek a candidate with a stellar record. Whether or not his star is truly that bright remains to be seen, but that would apply to any candidate. In the current political atmosphere, I don’t think Bush can select anyone that is too “extreme”. Remember, Bush is working on legacy now and his second term has not flowed too smoothly. He needs a full court and less diversion to see that his agenda starts flowing again, not that the court will directly advance his agenda. It’s just that each battle, and this is a supreme one in every sense of the word, detracts from his and the nation’s focus. Why give the opposing party more ammo to sabotage your work?
Yes, ed. I understand your frustration though we may disagree on exactly what Bush should prioritize. I expect a very conservative selection when Rehnquist steps down and for Scalia to head the court. That is a legacy Bush would likely prefer and one which will not rock the boat quite so much at a very important juncture in our country’s history. Sure, the waters will be rocky whenever a change to that court is made, but a sense of timing is important in surviving the swells.
Anyway, I look forward to the day that Scalia chairs though I respect Rehnquist tremendously.
Ed, you sound like a dog that’s been kicked so often you can’t believe you aren’t being kicked again.
I can’t think of a shrewder pick. A Federalist whose wife is a member of Feminists for Life? Just sublime, IMHO.
It just seems to me that there are still busloads of Cons out there who want the filibuster showdown more than a solid conservative jurist.
If he is a Con. then the balance of the Court has shifted; which is good, and that is the real prize.
Indeed — even if he is merely more reliably conservative than O’Connor, it’s a net gain.
Judicial activists are about making wholesale changes to the law at a breakneck pace — not originalists. And even adding a Perfect Storm-style originalist (so-called because getting one confirmed would require a Perfect Storm of political and legal circumstances; a once-in-a-hundred lifetimes event) to this Court isn’t going to be enough to start yanking out bad activist precedents that need to be yanked out. It would take two or three Perfect Storm originalists to make that much of a difference.
Nobody likes being told that a crap sandwich with mustard is better than a crap sandwich without mustard — but it is.
Anybody go and read Souter’s bio in that link I provided? Every last thing that people are saying about Roberts, is the same thing people were saying about Souter. And almost the same thing about O’Connor.
Yeah, you think this will work out? You think Roberts will *stay* a conservative?
Yeah right.
I was initially enthused about Roberts’ nomination but after reading ed’s positions about him (among other related), I’m not so sure.
My initial enthusiasm was that Bush nominated not as anticipated: a female Hispanic, to generalize (because the populist demands lately have been to “pick” a nominee based upon gender and racial type and not upon character and ethics, and I find that rank, as in, offensive in process).
Thus, it was great to see someone obviously academically fit nominated.
ANYone compared to Ruth Ginzberg is “conservative.” The biggest problem with the SC is not so much Ginzberg, however (as violated as is her psychology), but Souter (about whom, I agree with ed as being problematic and for the same reasons…he’s moreorless proven himself to be a weight upon any attempts to enforce the Constitution and avoid liberalism as the ‘rule’ in rewriting our nation’s character in defiance of Constituional integrity).
And about conservatism, often Bush has disappointed many of us, in that he is delivering a moderate populism rather than conservativism…the failing of his father in Office, which also lost him the reelection.
Without conservative support and contributionz…well, just look at the Seven in the Senate and how they’ve lost the faith of many voting cnservatives and for the same reasons.
On the other hand, I also agree that the “net gain” aspect to and about the SC is key. We just don’t know what Roberts will do, much as with Souter (who has proven himself to defy a conservative base who initially accepted his potential in that regard)…but it isn’t about ideology, about that I agree, other than “ideology” to conservatives in relationship to the SC MEANS that the Constitution is respected and applied, that issues are interpreted in the light of the Constituion, while to liberals, “ideology” means “progressive change” to avoid or even undermine the Constitution. At least, in my experience with the arguments of recent times.
I already wrote in support of Roberts, but, yes, I agree that it’s a risk to appoint a judge to the SC who offers a wildcard capability.. Souter, however, seems so eccentric as to be intellectually unreliable, while Roberts seems like a very steady personality — which is good, in my view, certainly academically capable.
I still cringe whenever I see/hear/read about Ginzberg. Our biggest national error. How and why Senate Republicans ever allowed her onto the SC, is beyond me.
Every time I start to reassess the Clintons (both of them and/or either), I return to the fact that Ruth Bader Ginzberg was Clinton’s nomination (probably both of theirs it seems now). That’s the Clinton’s idea of a SC judge. I mean, just consider that the next time you hear Hillary trying to now sell herself as “a moderate” and/or “a centrist.”
Without strong conservatives in the Senate (Frist, take note here), all the hard work and best intentions of conservatives and Republican voters are lost. We need more aggressive, more consistent Republican Senators to counter the absurd unruly excesses by randy Senate Democrats. Just hearing many of them this morning about the SC issue, much less about Karl Rove (they actually started “demanding” that “Karl Rove be impeached” with Kerry giving horrible birth to that nonsensical, foolish suggestion — Rove’s not elected, he can’t be “impeached,” and, the Demos don’t even know if Rove’s done anything wrong and they still just want him out, as if that’s reason enough to remove a person from the Administration). Many of us know we can’t rely on Senate Democrats, so, unless the Republicans in the Senate act reasonably, we’re, well, we’re…wandering.
ha, ed, Barbara Boxer has “resevations” about Roberts “based upon his record” in relationship to “the environment.”
??
Objecting to anyone based upon ‘the environment’ is like some sort of buzzword for “excuse to obstruct.”
Anyone know what Boxer’s referring to in relationship to Roberts? Not that I want to publicize this issue, just curious.
Hmmmm.
1. “I already wrote in support of Roberts, but, yes, I agree that it’s a risk to appoint a judge to the SC who offers a wildcard capability.. “
What people forget is that a lot of Republican nominated judges start off “conservative”, Souter was called that at one time, but drift lefward. Without a solid underpinning of conservatism, the drift leftward is inevitable.
Roberts is 50 years old. He potentially has 35 years on the bench. So the GOP/Bush is **guaranteeing** me that Roberts is going to remain conservative for the next 35 years.
Based on WHAT?
2. “ha, ed, Barbara Boxer has “resevations” about Roberts “based upon his record” in relationship to “the environment.””
Frankly I think most of the Democratic opposition is a smokescreen. I’m more than sure that there are plenty of Democrats who are even now figuring how to subvert Roberts into shifting leftward.
I continue to be underwhelmed.
3. “Nobody likes being told that a crap sandwich with mustard is better than a crap sandwich without mustard — but it is.”
After the 4th such sandwich, they certainly do start tasting like crap.
So…
Is Roberts a strict Constitutionalist?
Is Roberts a solid Conservative?
Does Roberts have a long history of supporting both Constitutionalism and Conservatism in both public and private life?
Because if the answer isn’t a solid resounding YES to all three questions, and more, then conservatives have been shafted by the GOP yet again.
So you think Roberts is the go-to guy then eh? You’ve got ***35*** years to prove it.
I understand Ed’s arguments, but I’m a little more optimistic. Maybe to a fault, but hey. The more the Democrats hound him over the coming weeks the better I’ll feel abut him.
You know what though – every day the left proves they are more worried about Roe v Wade than anything else. Any other issue they bring up is brief and just fodder used to obfuscate their real worries. It’s the one subject that keeps coming up in almost every Dem quote.
Bullwinkle’s right in that the Dems will disappoint us every time. At least we have a chance here. And I happen to “like” the idea of Scalia being Chief Justice.
Ha, “feminists” call Roberts “right wing”!!
I would like to see a list of the cases that he has argued before the Supreme Court, with a breakdown of who voted for and against the case to see a) how good he was as a lawyer, and where in the spectrum he is going to fit.
I assume that this data is available and some is probably compiling it right now.
Hey, Ed. If it’s any consolation, Ann Coulter agrees wholeheartedly with you.
Hmmmm.
One of my issues with Roberts is that he has been a judge for a very short amount of time. Before that he was pleading cases that he didn’t necessarily agree with. I.e. you CANNOT infer what Roberts thinks by what cases he has plead as a lawyer, because in all of those cases he was acting on behalf of his client and NOT himself.
So that means he’s got just about nothing for a background.
Joy.
Via FloridaOyster’s link to Drudge (July 20, 2005 01:25 PM)
Ann Coulter:
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they’d better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Heh. Classic. That gives a good many posters here a step up on Roberts. In fact Paul “Sting Like A Bee” Wizblogger would run circles around Roberts, a mere featherweight.
Is it me or does he look kinda like Frank Burns from M*A*S*H?
Sheesh all I’m seeing is conservative commentary. Anyone out there looking at this from the other (liberal) side?
Bush not conservative? That surprises me. From my perspective, he’s downright reactionary.
Anyway, I thought some of you might like to check out what the Christian Science Monitor has to say about this nomination….
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0721/p08s01-comv.html
Democrats will want to reserve judgement until these and other questions are raised. I can’t see Harry Reid going against this appointment, tell you the truth, so I don’t think there will be much resistance on the part of the Democratic Senate, unless Roberts says something stupid, like “If I get this appointment, I will do everthing in my power to overturn Roe V Wade.”
I think all Senate Republicans will push for his successful nomination regardless and will try to minimize the question and answer sessions to minimize risk.
Hmmmm.
@ AnonymousDrivel
“Heh. Classic. That gives a good many posters here a step up on Roberts. In fact Paul “Sting Like A Bee” Wizblogger would run circles around Roberts, a mere featherweight.”
Well there’s a question then. Has blogging and debating sharpened your views? Your knowledge of your own ideology, viewpoints and ethics? Hasn’t debating, discussing and defending your viewpoints given you great insight into yourself?
The reason I ask is because it has for me. I know I can’t be the only one.
So if this process has helped me to learn more about, and strengthen, my viewpoints then why shouldn’t I be wary of someone who has explicitly avoided any situation where he would be required to do the same?
Ed, did you ever consider that Roberts might be ringer? You keep assuming that when he shows his true side it’ll be liberal, maybe he’s not. Liberals have a way of running their mouths and proving to everyone how smart they aren’t, Roberts hasn’t shown us any of this. I’m hoping he speaks softly and carries a bigconservative stick.
RE: ed’s introspection (July 20, 2005 04:47 PM)
Oh, I agree. Yours and hers are valid points. I think I may have even stated something controversial once upon a time. Anyone recall Schiavo? From that one I learned that other members of this VRWC of which many of us are a part consider me the antichrist. However, it was quite worthwhile and an exercise of merit.
Stating and defending a position publicly, particularly on such a widely disseminated and raw forum, builds character, or at least exhibits the character that one is. Hmm. Does Roberts have a blog?
No, I was just having fun. I am a great fan of Coulter’s and agree with her acerbic commentary most of the time. I wish I had her skills. This was a tweak for Paul. It would appear he is untweakable. Sorry but I did not intend to tweak you. I don’t have quite the degree of skepticism that you have on this one but I get your point.
Ultimately, life appointments are like a box of chocolates…you never know what you’re going to get – even from boxes with labelled slots.
ed:
Go to
beldar.org
The first two articles posted there deal with beldar’s take (he’s a lawyer) on what kind of information Bush the Younger has about Roberts and what kind of Justice he’ll make.
Now I’m not endorsing Beldar; I never heard of him before this. I got to his blog from a link at Rightwingsparkle via lonestartimes. And he may be full of it (and himself). But his arguments do have a certain amount of logic to them. At the very least, they show that Bush the Younger should know Roberts as well as he knows “every square inch of his glorious, naked body.” To steal a cliche.
As for Ann Coulter…
I enjoy reading her stuff and even agree with her a fair amount of the time. But I don’t think she would have happy with anyone short of the second coming of Cotton Mather.
Second sentence ^^: insert the word “been” between the words “have” and “happy”. *SIGH*
I’m going to bed before I REALLY screw something up.