Bush will announce in about 50 minutes thathe is nominating John G. Roberts, a super-conservative Republican from the D.C. Circuit. to the Supreme Court. His wife is an ardent anti-abortion activist, i.e., one who wants to criminalize abortion. He is a Harvard Law graduate and a partner at the prestigious firm of Hogan & Hartson. So he is probably not an idiot (probably).
The good news is that he is not a total wacko, like Priscilla Owens or Edith Jones. So he will probably get confirmed. The bad news is that laws criminalizing abortion and flag-burning, even banning birth control, will likely be upheld when they meet a court with Roberts on it. He will no doubt uphold any anti-gay legislation. It is a very dark day for the court and the country. And the loser is.... all the rest of us.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
And the winner is... John Roberts
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 5:09 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Roberts is a former clerk of Chief Justice Rehnquist. This means that he was probably chosen months ago to replace Rehnquist, rather than O'Connor, since it is a bit odd putting teacher and student on the bench at the same time.
// posted by LTG
Something I've noticed in Rehnquist's written rulings and dissents is that he almost always sides with the power of the state (as in Liviathan) over the invidual. Does the GOP want a revolution? Do they want to provoke a situation like that preceding the New Deal?
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Oh and you'll notice we aren't talking about Karl Rove and Robert Novak anymore.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Rehnquist was often called a "statist" conservative. Although was known as a judicial activist on some social issues, his primary orientation was against overruling any legislative or executive act. Today, Rehnquist is far more intellectually dishonest, following an agenda. Bush says that Roberts will not try to "legislate from the bench," but he wants Roberts to overturn quite a bit of existing law. Indeed, if he fails to legislate from the bench, conservatives will revile him.
// posted by LTG
OK, I am not saying I am pleased, but I am not surprised either. We knew Bush would name a conservative. So let's see if he gets filibustered. Perhaps this is Bush's way of calling the Democrats out. Bush did say he would pick someone in the tradition of Scalia. Looks like he did. So I guess he can keep some promises. Good. Now he needs to fire Rove rather than hedging
OK, let's not go knee jerk here. No one is going to succeed in banning birth control. That is a sure fire way to knock the Republicans out of office. And big pharma may have something to say about that as well.
Maybe I am in denial, but one report I heard said that he may surprise people in how he ultimately votes on the bench. He may not go as conservative as one thinks.
Conservatives can revile him all they want. Once he is on the bench, too bad so sad. But let's remember- he is young- 50 years old. That is a sad thing.
// posted by USWest
I heard little but praise for Roberts from commentators on NPR. When their legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg was asked if the nomination was a slam dunk, said it was, "looking pretty dunky." Conservative? Yes. But this guy seems to be mainstream conservative--more of an idealist than an ideologue. Unless new information comes out, I think the Democrats would do well to confirm him with dignity.
There won't be a national ban on birth control. But there will be state wide bans on birth control and a lot of backward social policy that will be upheld. And the social problems these religious policies cause will be paid for by Blue States.
As for Robert's status as a "main stream" conservative. I'm far less willing to be hopeful than Dr. Strangelove. I'm long past assuming the conservative movement has any sense of limitations on either power or their demands. I think LTG hit the nail on the head earlier when he said these people are seeking the re-establishment of a Dickensian nightmare - OK, he said Victorian but I think Dickensian is more descriptive.
Unless Roberts is from the libertarian wing of the party - no indication of that being the case - I'll urge my Senators to filibuster.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I think Bush did the politically astute thing for once. He picked a man who is as conservative as possible without being a filibuster-able wacko. I predict swift confirmation (sadly).
// posted by LTG
Backward social policy? Absolutely.
Bans on birth control? No. You know why? That affects men way too much.
Limitations if not absolute bans on abortion? Quite possibly.
Good point that the blue states will pay for bad policies. We will. Bush and Rove want to create a Republican legacy. There were given a grand opportunity when O'Connor announced retirement. And when Rehnquist dies on the bench, they will have yet another. Their assimilation of government will be complete-exactly what George Washington feared when he warned against party politics. But, then again, Democrats had all 3 branches for while as well. So I guess it all cycles around.
I agree with LTG. Bush did the politically wise thing. The confirmation will come. Roberts doesn't have much of a record for Democrats to critique without looking bad.
// posted by USWest
Was anyone else surprised by Bush's choice of a person like John Roberts? I expected him to nominate an extreme religious right-winger and ram it through the Senate. Instead, he chooses a brilliant and well-liked conservative thinker--not an extremist--who mentions nothing political or fundamentalist in his brief speech. He doesn't even mention God.
My favorite legal affairs commentator, Nina Totenberg (certainly not a conservative mouthpiece!) conjectured that Bush intended to nominate Alberto Gonzales and as the Chief Justice later on, and so was choosing Roberts to placate the conservatives. (Because in George W. Bush's America, Gonzales is what passes for a moderate these days.)
Could Roberts and Gonzales reflect Bush's personal views more than, say, Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed? Is it possible that the son of George H. W. "kinder and gentler" Bush is a more traditional conservative at heart, and is not actually the megalomaniacal religious zealot he seems?
Bush's ideology is based on his accumulation of power. Along with that he loyalty to those who help him get and keep power (like Gonzalez). I think he is a religious conservative at heart to the extent he has any serious commitment to those kinds of things.
As for Roberts, we haven't heard what he has to say yet. The usual NPR warm fuzzy stuff isn't exactly a liberal endorsement. This man has argued that Roe v Wade be overturned. Does that mean he doesn't recognize a right to privacy generally? How might he rule on a Patriot Act related illegal search and siezure.
Is he worth a fillibuster? Perhaps not. But let's wait and see how he does in the hearings first. We may find out some scary stuff in the mean time.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I tend to disagree with both LTG's predictions of doom and gloom and Dr. S' warm fuzzy outlook. I'm also not sure it will be that easy a confirmation process. I can only agree with RbR that we know very little about this guy so far, so we just have to collect as much information as possible. Is he a total pro-corporate sell-out? How does he feel about environmental legislation? Gay rights? I have heard only very little about these topics. Let's all pay careful attention over the coming weeks (without letting Rove off the hook)
// posted by Bell Curve
By the way, this page is a very good place to start to try to answer the question "Who is John Roberts?"
// posted by Bell Curve
The scary thing is that Roberts seems to think that, the constitution notwithstanding, terrorism gives the President a blank check in fighting terrorists.
// posted by LTG
Bell Curve--my, you are in a disagreeable mood this morning! :-) Ah well. I suppose there is probably some middle ground between warm n' fuzzy and doom n' gloomy.
Allow me try to remove some of the fuzz from my warmth, at least. It's clear that John G. Roberts is quite conservative. But he's not a zealot. And even though he did sign a brief during the Bush I administration endorsing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, he also said, during his confirmation hearing to the D.C. circuit, "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." So at least he's not too fringey on the subject.
Let's face it. He's the best we're going to get out of Bush. And there's no way the "Gang of 14" Senators will consider this extraordinary enough to merit a filibuster unless Roberts does something amazing during his confirmation hearings. Better to preserve the filibuster and the political capital for the next nomination.
Perhaps by opposing Janice Rodgers Brown and Priscilla Owens so strongly, Sen. Reid pushed Bush to make a more "consensus" choice for the bench than he might have done otherwise.
I heard something on NPR today that gives me some glimmer of hope. In addition to his work supporting the wingnuts on abortion (and in Bush v Gore apparently), he also represented the coalition of state attorneys general in their class action suit against Microsoft. So he has shown a willingness to cross big business at least in a role as a mercenary lawyer.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
He's not "the best" we can get out of Bush. He's the *worst* Bush can shove through. There's a world of difference. Bush had the opportunity to nominate a thoughtful moderate jurist. His father did that with Souter. Today, even a "moderate" is too lefty for them (the canard that Souter has drifted leftward is false - the rest of the court has drifted rightward).
// posted by LTG
LTG--I think you underestimate Bush's power to shove judges through the Senate.
Post a Comment