This is interesting:
President Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. today to replace Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, whose death late Saturday opened a second vacancy on the Supreme Court and a new front in the ideological battle over the judiciary.
The chief justice died just days before the Senate Judiciary Committee was preparing to convene hearings Tuesday on the nomination of Judge Roberts, of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. The hearings will be the first in 11 years for a Supreme Court nominee. Judge Roberts was a former clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.It was not clear how the announcement would affect the proceedings.
Seems like he has pretty broad support, it is a conservative nomineee replacing a conservative chief, and I think this will not be that big of an issue.
*** Update ***
And I really see no big reason why these hearings can’t be delayed a week or so, given the events of the past week.
capelza
I heard that this morning. I don’t have the animus against Roberts that many of my fellow lefties do. We aren’t going to get a “liberal” judge.
But what’s intriguing to me is that Scalia isn’t going to be Chief Justice with this. Am I missing some politcal undercurrent between him and Bush? Or is this the way it works? I don’t know.
Demdude
I wouldn’t have a problem with it. We weren’t getting our first, second or third pick anyhow.
There was also some talk about asking Sandra O’Connor to change her resignation date to keep a full court for the time being.
I couldn’t tell you exactly were I heard it, maybe a Sunday Morning Political Gas Bag Show, but it would make sense.
ppGaz
Blue dog Dem here.
I’ll say the same thing I said when Roberts got the first nomination:
Confirm Roberts, and move on. He’s a good lawyer, a good judge, and a good man. And he’s almost certainly the best we are going to get from this administration.
End of thread.
—/
Just kidding.
About the thread, I mean.
JBD
I agree, John. This was a pretty smart move politically for the president right now. Of course the big question is who gets picked for the second seat now – safe pick or not.
over it
I guess that what I am wondering about is why not Scalia? He has the experience and he has the conservative view…..whereas Roberts only has(we think) the conservative view.
How do you think the rest of the Justices will feel about being skipped over for the young fella?
What, if any, bearing will this have on who he now nominates to fill Sandra’s place. Do you think he will now choose a woman?
I have this feeling that Renquist may well be rolling in his grave over this. 2 days after he passes on a young man with very little judicial experience is tapped to fill his shoes.
Personally, I like the idea of a younger person stepping in. I just think that I may be in the minority(where, for whatever reason, I often find myself).
over it
I should clarify my above statement concerning the experience of Scalia vs. the experience of Roberts….I meant only that Scalia has the experience of having sat on the SCOTUS for years. Roberts is experienced in the law as well….but from serving in a different capacity.
Davebo
I have no problem with Roberts but it is curious that he picked him for Chief with only two years experience as a judge.
Jim
I suspect that Rehnquist is not “rolling over in his grave” as a result of the “yong man” being tapped as his replacement. That young man was a clerk of his and, from what I have read, somewhat of a protege.
As to why not Scalia as CJ, historically more CJs have not been members of the court. In this instance it is easy to see why Bush would not nominate Scalia even assuming he would want him as CJ. If he were to nominate Scalia, there would be 3 nomination battles (O’connor’s seat, the CJ seat, and Scalia’s replacement).
Tom Scudder
How common is it for a new Chief Justice to not even have been on the court before?
cd6
I laughed at this. Hey, I was never really against Roberts. But it cracked me up to see conservatives so dead against allowing a full vetting process on Roberts, considering he has little experience on the bench and no real decision track record to help us figure out his core beliefs. All we have is Bush saying “he’s a true conservative” but his father said that too.
As a Dem, I thought the best we could do was an unknown quality as a nominee, who might swing left once he hit the bench. And I think Roberts is the closest we’ll come to that. So confirm him, by all means. Personally, I think this would be way better than Scalia as CJ, ugh.
docG
There is much policy wise about President Bush and current conservatism that I don’t agree with, but the President and his supporters have earned the right to reshape the Supreme Court with their nominations. All of the foot stomping to come from the liberal wing of American politics is essentially irrelevant. When liberals win, they shape the Court. When conservatives win, they shape the Court.
Don’t like the Court? Win.
Seal Pool
When fascists win, they shape the court.
JBD
Tom – only three CJs (of 16 through Rehnquist) were on the Supreme Court before being elevated: Edward White (1910-1921), Harlan Stone (1941-1946) and Rehnquist (1986-2005).
dlnevins
Seems a reasonable approach to me, and ought to stave off a lot of unnecessary political battling. Bet Scalia’s disappointed, though.
RiverRat
Earl Warren
Overview
Born: March 19, 1891
Died: July 9, 1974
Party: Republican
Time served: 15 years, 8 months, 18 days
Position: chief Justice
Nominated by: Eisenhower
Commissioned: October 2, 1953
Sworn in: October 5, 1953
Left Office: June 23, 1969
Reason for leaving: Retired
Prior judicial experience: None
RiverRat
Also:
William Rhenquist
Prior judicial experience: None
John S.
John,
If you see no problem with it, I’d love to work for you. That way after everyone else on your staff spends decades on the job, I can be put in a position of authority over them before I even start my job with you!
But seriously, you see nothing wrong with this situation solely from a human resources standpoint?
jobiuspublius
I HATE defeatism. Any chance that standing up for what you want could have some positive benefit however incidental?
John B.
OK, since Roberts is the conservative replacement for Rehnquist, Bush is obligated to appoint a less conservative replacement for O’Conner, right? Right? Why am I even trying. The next nominee will be a wacko, I’m sure. Only five years of judicial experience for the chief justice? Bush might as well nominate my wife for the associate position, and she’s still waiting on her bar results.
jobiuspublius
I can’t wait to see how he fucks up.
demimondian
No, jackass, it wouldn’t.
The government must run, and recognizing that isn’t defeatism, it’s being a grown up.
Caroline
My concern about Roberts is do we have all the records to make a judgement? As I understand it, the Bush Administration is withholding many documents w/r/t Roberts. Considering Jr.’s penchant for appointing incomepetent partisan hacks, I think we should have all the information in order to make a decision.
RiverRat
Ginsberg:
Federal Judicial Position(s) Law clerk, Judge Edmund Palmieri, Southern District of NY, 1959-61; Judge, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1980-83
Five years experience? Roberts has only two years experience on the bench. Only Burger of the last 3 Chief Justices had any judicial experience.
Would you leftards at least do a little googling before opening your firking mouths.
jobiuspublius
I guess they don’t want to expose what their real agenda is.
demimondian
Caroline:
As far as that goes, we have quite a bit of information on what matters. The documents being withheld are memos Roberts wrote while White House Counsel in the Reagan administration. I don’t happen to think that they’re properly protected documents, but I also don’t think that they’ll make any difference in the outcome.
We already know what Roberts thinks about abortion personally: his wife is head of Feminists for Life, one of the fake right-wing anti-abortion mills. The question is not what he thinks about abortion, but what he thinks about Substantive Due Process — that is, whether he thinks _Gobitis_ was decided correctly. That’s a question he can and should be asked at his confirmation hearings.
The other documents? They’re a red herring.
jobiuspublius
That’s why they’re so important. He still thinks like a WH counsel, not a judge. Those documents will spell it out, and more.
demimondian
Do you have a clue, DarrelliusPublius? Do you think you can find one if you look *real* hard?
Those documents show nothing about his state of mind today. Whether he still thinks like a WH Counsel now, I certainly hope that he thought like a WH Counsel back when he *was* the WH Counsel. I rather expect that those documents would show that.
Will those documents change any minds? Here’s a hint, dude: the answer is one word long, and it is spelled the same way in English and in Spanish. There are legitimate questions Roberts shuld be asked at his hearings about his constitutional views. Beyond that…the government has to function.
jobiuspublius
No need to get upset, demimondian. It’s only a gentle disagreement.
They are important. It’s part of his history which predicts what he will be like. He’s being package for public consumption as something he is not. Those documents will help make the case that he doesn’t appear as impartial or proper as is being portrayed. Remember, certain appearances are very important for a judge.
ppGaz
I have no dog in your fight, but that just made me spit Coke Zero all over my desk.
demimondian
Jobious…Have you ever consulted an attorney? If so, after you paid your retainer, I hope that he or she was rabidly partisan in your interests, looking for every possible advantage for you. I hope that he or she took great pride in arguing any point that leans its way, in a totally unfair and predatory fashion.
After all, that is what you paid for.
And the same thing is true of the WH Counsel. If John Roberts didn’t seem like a partisan hack in those memos, then he would have shown himself to not understand the law.
jobiuspublius
So, will the real John Roberts, please stand up? You can’t appoint someone to the supreme court unless he has a history, if you care to do things right.
demimondian
Why is there any conflict between them?
Here’s a simple example. I’m a part-time engineer these days — once you get far enough up in any company, you spend as much or more time as an advocate for the company’s products as anything else. I still know how to evaluate a design, and judge whether it is the “right” one or not. That doesn’t mean I can’t argue for my employer’s positions when the need arises — it means that I draw a line between advocacy and engineering. They’re quite different things, and I make sure my customers know when I’m doing each one.
There are equivalent dichotomies in every profession, and the law is no exception. So the answer to your question is “Yes — all of us.”
jobiuspublius
If it’s “all of us”, then let’s see the WH counsel side. Or else, we can’t see the complete John Roberts, i.e. the real John Roberts. We deserve to do a complete “background check” on him if he wants to work for us.
demimondian
What’s it going to tell you that the amicus briefs Robert wrote pro bono wouldn’t tell you?
C’mon, Jobius — it’s a red herring. Leave it.
jobiuspublius
You’re kiding me.
ppGaz
There are as many kinds of judges as there are kinds of auto mechanics, or dentists.
Most judges, though, have certain things in common. One of those is that they are very sensitive to the way their work is judged by their peers and by lawyers. They take this seriously, and very few of them will let their own prejudices run away with their work enough to get noticed …. or reversed.
From what I can tell, Roberts is highly respected by his peers. That tells me a great deal.
jobiuspublius
demimondian: According to Ralph Neas on tonights http://www.majorityreportradio.com, Roberts was brought into the Reagan and Bush Sr. administration to develop policy which they did not have. That’s more than lawyering. He was making up minds and decisions. He’s an “archtect”. The documents may devulge and corroborate information of the pertinent. Your red herring claim seems like a red herring.
ppGaz: I’d rather see for myself, so to speak. Maybe there are things they will not say that are important to me.
demimondian
Well, actually, that is what a staff attorney does. In this case, the solicitor general represents the government; the White House Counsel advises and advocates for the White House in all ways.
Again, though, you need to ask yourself seriously what you would learn from the documents. That Roberts was very conservative and very smart in his twenties? You know, the draft opinions he wrote during his stint as Rehnquist’s clerk already show that. They also show his ability as a judge, you know — and we can already read all of them.
jobiuspublius
Then there shouldn’t be any harm in having the extra documents. You can’t be certain that there is nothing interesting there. Are you saying that there is no inconsistancy of ambiguity between his draft opinions, his amicus briefs, and his recent rulings?
On a side note, thanks for letting me know what a dishonest defense it is to say “he was only a lawyer saying that on behalf of his client”.
jobiuspublius
*or ambiguity not of
demimondian
As a matter of fact, I know of a number of inconsistencies, particularly between his opinions and his amicus briefs. I haven’t read any of his recent rulings, so I don’t know whether there are any other inconsistencies. I’d be surprised if there weren’t; people learn and change as they live, after all. Even conservatives.
As to the harm in the extra documents…well, not to Roberts. The point of the A/C privilege is to protect the client — it’s perfectly legal to ask an attorney his opinion about doing something illegal. It’s just not OK to do it.
I’m not interested in protecting Roberts here, you know — the memos to Rehnquist were more private, after all. I’m interested in protecting the privilege.
Why is it dishonest? Attorneys give advice, and sometimes to disreputable people. Clients come in and say “Look, I want to achieve , but doing it directly would clearly be illegal. Can I do , which will cause as a side effect, and stay within the bounds of the law? If not, what legal alternatives do I have?” As long as isn’t illegal in itself (e.g. “causing someone’s death”), then the attorney needs to give advice.
jobiuspublius
Perhaps I misinterpreted Ralph Neas. I got the impression that Reagan/Bush had no particular opinion on some things like, “Uh, do we want to get rid of abortion?” and Roberts would answer that for them, “Yes”. So, that on some issues he was doing what he wanted.
There is another thing about Roberts that I sort of remember. He likes to say things that say nothing. I think we should see some more of that.
I don’t see how A/C is harmed here. We own the WH and govt. Yes, I’m a simpleton. I can live with it.
demimondian
Good. Living with being a simpleton is the first step to enlightenment. I’ve been living with it for a long time, too, if it’s any consolation. I just don’t admit it in publ…oh. Never mind.
If you go back to my first post on this, you’ll notice that I said:
That is, I agree with you. However, any limitation of A/C is highly suspect, and needs strong justification. The thrust of my argument throughout has been that there’s very little reason to believe that there’s anything in those notes that’s really important, and, therefore, that we should recognize this as a red herring.
jobiuspublius
Then, we reach an impasse. I gamble in one direction. You gamble in the other. BTW, thx for the civil discourse. I don’t mind throwing some attitude around, but, Hurricane Darrell gets old.
Steve
Frankly the guy doesn’t concern me. He’d probably make a good chief justice.
This is obviously a snub at the wingnut/moonbat right, who were expecting Scalia to get the job. I know a couple of them and they are absolutely convinced that Scalia is the only guy on the court who is worth anything.
Roberts on the other hand, appears to have a respect for the law which is important. As to him becoming an activist judge and overturning various past decisions… it doesn’t matter.
The Republican party doesn’t want to get rid of gays or abortion… if they did, they wouldn’t have anything to campaign on and would have to resort about talking to real issues that actually effect peoples lives.. where tey have no policy prescriptions.