Just in time to adjust our attention away from the Rove leak (but only for a short time), Bush nominates the Hon. John G. Roberts to be the next Supreme Court Justice.
Oh yeah, another white male on the court. Glad to see us gaining some ground. Bush's first mistake, however, was not nominating another woman to fill the vacancy. I'll get to that in another post though.
Now I know Republicans will scream and yell that the president has picked a terrific conservative judge who is led by God and demand that he be confirmed quickly. And the Democrats will scream and yell that the president has selected someone with little experience, who should undergo a plethora of questions and a very scrutinized screening process-- I’m sure it’s already started. Both sides have their validity (except the God part), and the confirmation process should be very interesting.
My initial feelings are that Judge Roberts should have the benefit of a doubt here. I’m sure his resume is outstanding and I’m sure he has probably lived his entire life to become a Supreme Court Justice. Until, and unless, Roberts assumes some form of complete partisanship I see no reason why he should not be confirmed.
Being able to ask Roberts questions during the confirmation in the Senate should also not be blasted by Republicans either. Because of Roberts’ very meager qualifications and because the Senate has very little background on Roberts’ decisions, Roberts should then be held and expected to answer some very important questions at the confirmation hearings. If I’m not mistaken, Roberts might be the least qualified judge to ever be nominated for the Supreme Court; though I could be wrong on that.
One thing that does stand out about Roberts, and does somewhat disturb me, is his ability to jive with 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 (I’ll have to look this case up because I don’t know the name of it).
But once Saddam was overthrown in 2003, the Bush administration wanted to protect the new Iraqi government from liability and interfered to block the award. Roberts, alone among the circuit judges who ruled with the government (Bush), said the federal courts did not even have jurisdiction to consider the victims' claim. Thus overturning the lower courts decision and leaving the veterans and POW’s out in the cold.
Even with all that, and I’m sure there will probably be more, Judge Roberts does appear to be a decent pick. We’ll see how this all turns out.
7.19.2005
And the Nominee Is...
Posted by Chris at 8:54 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I must disagree with both MJ and Taylor here. Justices are appointed to serve for life so I believe the senators have every right to ask important philosophical questions concerning constitutional jurisprudence. Should nominees be asked how they would vote on any given case? No. But they should be asked how they would reach a conclusion.
The high, above-the-fray "Ginsburg standard" approach now being pushed by conservatives does not appeal to me. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg replaced liberal justices on the court so conservatives so there was no change in the balance of power on the court.
Justice O'Connor was a swing voting justice, (as is Kennedy and Breyer though these two are not leaving anytime soon) so there should be expectation that our president's chosen replacement be rubber stamped .
I would advise both of you to review the comments I have made concerning post-O'Connor jurisprudence and Roe v. Wade before committing one way or the other. That applies to both those who are pro-choice as well as those who are pro-life.
Taylor I do believe that it should have been a woman despite it maybe sounding ridiculous. But I would have accepted the nominee also being any minority, including Asian-American or whatever else we all consider a minority to be this week. Thanks for reading, haven't seen you around in a while.
Heretic, haven't seen you lately either buddy. I think maybe you missed read me, because I do call for Roberts answering the tough questions that will be presented to him:
"Being able to ask Roberts questions during the confirmation in the Senate should also not be blasted by Republicans either. Because of Roberts’ very meager qualifications and because the Senate has very little background on Roberts’ decisions, Roberts should then be held and expected to answer some very important questions at the confirmation hearings."
I just love to quote myself :)
Heretic I will check out your post, I always trust that you do a very good job with your site. I wish I could throw more readers your way, but I'm lacking in that ability. Heretic probably has one of the most analytical minds I have seen yet.
Joseph, I think acceptable is a very good word. I think it will be hard to argue against this selection, at least from what I know now. Though the decision to reverse the lower courts ruling for the POWs still bothers me.
Thanks guys for reading.
Just because you don't see me commenting doesn't mean I'm not reading. I make it my business to check out your site every other day.
;)
I really don't care if it was a woman or not.
Rowe versus Wade does weigh heavily though.
I also read somewhere to being appointed to the DC court of appeals this man was this man was part of the behind the scenes stuff during the litigation in Florida after the first Bush Election. I am not sure what bearing this would have on it all but it would bother me were it to be true.
It is obvious from what we have been told he does not believe in ruling from the bench and it appears he has high regard for constitutional law. It is Interpretation of Law though so I am not sure that makes that much of a difference.
No further comment from here until I have more fully looked into it all.
Where do you all find the time?
.
What does worry me is that Rehnquist is obviously nextto go and soon, and although on the surface this nominee appears "acceptable" if what comes after is worse, and it will be, then I think from my perspective we are in trouble. So looking at it that way a slightly more liberal and maybe even female choice would have been way more acceptable to me.
This man is there for life, they should ask him whatever they please because he his very young and we may be stuck with him until I am sixty years old.
Not fair MJ, you don't give me much room to fiercely debate you, but as you know me, I will give it a try.
I think Bush should have nominated Alberto Gonzales first. I believe he wanted to, but that would have tanked quickly and done nothing for the process.
I don't think anyone should get caught up in woman for woman and so forth. It that was the case to simply repeat, then a woman nor a African-American would have been able to reach such heigths. However, if and when Rhenquist does go, he should really put more thought into a female judge, as I am sure there will be qualified individuals out there.
I think Bush did a spendid job in choosing someone that would be confirmed quickly and would get the court back to normal as soon as possible. I would wish for more of a conservative, but like okdemocrat said, "I am not pleased, but I am satisfied"
aaahhh, Alice, time is of the essence. I really don't have any time. That's why I can't update daily like I wish I could. On the weekends is usually when I have the most time. But who the hell wants to blog on the weekends? I usually spend my weekends totally intoxicated with Craig. Just kidding.
I did read where Roberts was a behind the scenes man during Florida 2000. I'm sure he probably was, but not much can be done about that now.
I do agree with you about being able to ask him questions, not much is known about the guy. Thanks for reading.
Hymer, I can't help it I like women. I'm sorry. Women rock! I just think since women make up 50% of our population then replacing a retiring female with another is the right thing to do. Now if she were a green martian female that would suffice too. Thanks for reading dude.
Craig, what, you're finding something to disagree about?? Hey, I wouldn't have it any other way :)
I actually would have supported Gonzales. He was my first pick, male pick that is.
It scares me when you say that you would have hoped for more of a conservative than Roberts, cause I know how far right you are :) Just kidding. But, that right wing you hope for ain't all that different than that left wing you despise.
But I do agree, I am satisfied with the pick as well. Roberts should be confirmed as quickly as possible.
Take a look at the shit Ann Coulter is already spewing! (LINK)
It is despicable.
MJ so you and Cpt Kirk have something in common? Hmmm, interesting.
Although I am a woman I am more concerned with Roe V Wade than with just replacing a woman for a woman. I would rather have a moderate than just focus on gender or ethnic background.
I hope the Senate asks all the good questions, the ones that most people would be afraid to ask so that we can get a good idea of where he's coming from. Oh wait I forgot the senate isn't Oprah.
HH6
I tend to agree with Household. The judge's own understanding of his job and his interpretation of broad constitutional principles like free speech, religious establishment, due process, equal protection, and federalism weigh far more heavily on me than the supposed identity of any nominee.
I hope the senators do as the right questions on privacy and a whole wide array of constitutional principles.
Justice Roberts is married to a leading pro-life wife associated with the Feminists for Life organization so he will have an important person in his life pushing for him to reverse on Roe v. Wade but he cannot do so without obtaining the help of Justice Kennedy, a co-writer of ruling opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey upholding abortion.
Household may be in for a pleasant surprise. Judge Roberts knows that, whatever his views are on abortion or on the legal validity of Roe v. Wade, he may need to uphold judicial precedent so as not to "legislate from the bench" in the other direction.
The Democratos may won the best they could get from President Bush - a justice who votes to uphold the status quo on privacy for liberals but promises to the conservatives "no mas" with respect to non-enumerated right "creation."
Post a Comment