T3h next Supreme Court justice (?)

[Barb]

The next Supreme Court justice (?)

President Bush selects John G. Roberts to fill the gap left by retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

He is described as being a rock solid conservative, so I know eventually this thread will be moved to the debate forum but, in the meantime, discuss.

 

[Mozz]

Yum Yum >D

 

[The Big Al]

He's got a battle on his hands. The Democrats said they wanted a centrist to keep the court balanced. Considering this man is being appointed to highest court in the land, I believe this can be called extraordinary circumstances and he will under the microscope by both Democrats and Moderate Republicans.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

A veteran appellate attorney, he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, both in private practice and as deputy solicitor general during the administration of Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.

So does everyone important that Bush appoints have to come from his dad's term?

He was nominated to the same court by the first President Bush in 1992, but his nomination did not come up for a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate before the White House changed hands in January 1993.

Just had to throw that in there.

But the spokesman, Jim Manley, added, "Now he needs to demonstrate to the Senate that he has a commitment to core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."

If only it were true.

The Alliance for Justice criticized Roberts for his arguments against the use of racial considerations by the public sector, known by its supporters as affirmative action.

Arguing a case for the first Bush administration in 1990, Roberts said Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Oh hell. This is going to get UGLY.

Bush nominated Roberts to D.C. Circuit Court on Jan. 7, 2003. He was confirmed four months later. During his confirmation hearing to the appeals court, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that 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 told the panel.

Just had to throw in something from the conservative side.

Interesting thing is that in the entire FoxNews story, there's not a single Democrat quoted. In my crazy mind...that's funny.

As for my views on this guy...I think he could be worse. I have a feeling he'll make it, but only after a BUNCH of complaining by SOMEONE. Either the democrats complaining about him, or the republicans complaining about the democrats.

 

[Mozz]

He does not have a battle on his hands. From NRO (Take with grain of salt, but pay attention to the facts):

Any attempt to filibuster him should be dismissed as silliness: when they finally permitted a vote on Roberts for the court of appeals, he was confirmed by unanimous consent. If the Democrats attempt to call him an “extraordinary circumstance” and use the filibuster, it will show their own disengenuity, and will guarantee not only the use of the nuclear option permanently ending the judicial filibusters, but public support for the nuclear option.

 

[birdboy2000]

Well, not a filibuster... Any chance of having the sane seven jump ship and vote with the democrats?

 

[Mozz]

I really don't see it happening ^^;

 

[Zeta]

Wow. He seems moderately sane. I'm shocked. I was expecting Scalia v 2.0.

 

[The Big Al]

He does not have a battle on his hands. From NRO (Take with grain of salt, but pay attention to the facts):

Any attempt to filibuster him should be dismissed as silliness: when they finally permitted a vote on Roberts for the court of appeals, he was confirmed by unanimous consent. If the Democrats attempt to call him an “extraordinary circumstance” and use the filibuster, it will show their own disengenuity, and will guarantee not only the use of the nuclear option permanently ending the judicial filibusters, but public support for the nuclear option.

Appellet =/= Supreme. And the American people do not support the nuclear option and never will. It smacks too hard of a dictatorship.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

They'll accept it. With a conservative controlled EVERYTHING, and constant near-propaganda against democrats...people will accept it. If anything, they'll hate the democrats for making it happen.

 

[Mozz]

Doesn't matter. If the Democrats try to filibuster him, they'll look foolish.

Note that I am NOT in favor of the "nuclear" option.

 

[Barb]

You hijacked my thread. And you can't spell 'the'. ;_;

 

[birdboy2000]

What, should it have been with a 7? Or a lower-case t?

 

[Barb]

A '7', of course.

 

[Fig]

What, nobody has said it yet?

DOOM!
GLOOM!
WOE!

There. The appropriate words for a Bush-decision have been spoken.

 

[Zeta]

I kept on wondering why Bush chose this guy, of all people - when he problably could've forced a whackier, more religious nutjob into the position.

Then it hit me - he's not thinking in terms of how conservative he is, he's thinking of how long a judge will last. This guy is fairly young. He's only been a judge for a handful of years, relatively speaking. He's not supposed to to ram through religious doctrine, he's just supposed to live - forever.

More extremist judges problably would've been older and would've only lasted 10 or 20 years instead of 30 or 40.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I still think he's just trying to get his dad's friends jobs.

 

[The Big Al]

I also think he's trying to appeal to the Reagan Republicans who have been fracturing from him. However, the guy's a flip flopper on Roe v. Wade. I thought that was bad thing.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

No he's not. He just says that he doesn't agree with it, but he'll uphold it. He's voicing his opinion, but upholding precedent. I like people who uphold precedent.

 

[Roses Ablaze]

Yes, objective judges are good. Let's just hope this guy doesn't allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his decisions just like he says they won't...