Justice O'Connor Is Retiring

[Swaggs]

I am not surprised at all.

I think, to a fault, Bush has proven himself to be extremely disciplined about sticking to his guns, even when it is not popular or the best thing to do.

[ISiddiqui]

Won't be overturning Roe though:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...co/scotus_bush

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think, to a fault, Bush has proven himself to be extremely disciplined about sticking to his guns, even when it is not popular or the best thing to do.

Where did this impression come from? Bush has gone back, on numerous things, most recently yesterday when he first said he would fire anyone involved in the leak, then when it was made known that it was Rove he changed it to if there there any felons they would be fired (setting the ethical bar quite high, indeed). I can think of tons of others off the top of my head that he has 'flip-flopped' on, such as the dep of homeland sec, gay marriage, social security, etc. He is merely doing what he thinks will most further his goals. The situations where he is perceived as 'sticking to his guns' are only him doing what he thinks is in his best interests.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Won't be overturning Roe though:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...co/scotus_bush

That's not what NARAL just said. Probably shouldn't let them anywhere near a microphone either.

If he's as good as an appellate (sp?) judge as they say, I really, really hope the SC can keep hearing properties and eminent domain cases until they get it right.

[ISiddiqui]

It isn't likely that Roberts' nomination would change a damned thing on that (O'Conner was in the dissent and even there the main dissent would have let it go if it was for many private owners rather than one). I think what you'd want for eminent domain would be to have 5 Clarence Thomas' on the bench, who thinks only when the use is only by the government can eminent domain apply.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Thanks to HB for posting the summary of Roberts' actions on several key issues.
Saved me from going looking for the very same sort of thing & I do appreciate it.

[Buccaneer]

MrBiggle (funny name for a 25 yr old), if you are like Flere and think that this administration is full of dangerous crooks, how can you see anything else?

I trust you did join me last Fall and voted Libertarian since you have strongly spoke out against the status quo of politicians.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It isn't likely that Roberts' nomination would change a damned thing on that (O'Conner was in the dissent and even there the main dissent would have let it go if it was for many private owners rather than one). I think what you'd want for eminent domain would be to have 5 Clarence Thomas' on the bench, who thinks only when the use is only by the government can eminent domain apply.

I know, I was thinking more along the lines of his perceived persuasiveness in changing one vote.

[ISiddiqui]

Why couldn't he have voted for another 3rd Party?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I know, I was thinking more along the lines of his perceived persuasiveness in changing one vote.

One vote? You mean to have eminent domain for the benefit of many private companies rather than just one?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why couldn't he have voted for another 3rd Party?

True but somehow I think I have doubts about that.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

One vote? You mean to have eminent domain for the benefit of many private companies rather than just one?

I yield to our future jurist.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

Without knowing more about the case, it's hard for me to say whether I agree or disagree with his decision here.

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)

And the same for this one.

Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

This ruling makes me nervous.


I'm not sure how safe it is to project his arguments as a government attorney to his likely decisions as a justice, so I'm not going to take a strong position on any of those.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Where did this impression come from? Bush has gone back, on numerous things, most recently yesterday when he first said he would fire anyone involved in the leak, then when it was made known that it was Rove he changed it to if there there any felons they would be fired (setting the ethical bar quite high, indeed). I can think of tons of others off the top of my head that he has 'flip-flopped' on, such as the dep of homeland sec, gay marriage, social security, etc. He is merely doing what he thinks will most further his goals. The situations where he is perceived as 'sticking to his guns' are only him doing what he thinks is in his best interests.

Talking about nominations.

For all of his talk of being a uniter, he has done little/nothing to compromise or cross party lines when it comes to his appointments, judicial nominees, or even his selection of vice president.

[flere-imsaho]

In a way, a clever pick. What I've found on-line so far paints him as a conservative idealogue, but since he doesn't have much of a judicial track record, there's not a lot for the left to tee off on. This will make any fight by the Democrats harder.

[CamEdwards]

There was a story by Mike Allen in the WaPo a few weeks ago that talked about the Democratic gameplan on whoever the Supreme Court nominee would be.

1- say the President didn't go to the Senate for advice on who the nominee should be. President kind of deflected that by talking with at least 60 Senators.

2- paint the nominee as an "extremist". Might be hard to do outside of his signing on to the Roe v. Wade document.

3- say the White House hasn't given them all the documents they need in order to fully vet the nominee.

It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats hold off on confirming a guy they recently put on the bench by a unanimous vote. If they don't tread carefully they're going to end up looking like major obstructionists.

edit: here's the link to the orginal WaPo article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070201160.html

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In a way, a clever pick. What I've found on-line so far paints him as a conservative idealogue, but since he doesn't have much of a judicial track record, there's not a lot for the left to tee off on. This will make any fight by the Democrats harder.

Fighting for the sake of opposition?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There was a story by Mike Allen in the WaPo a few weeks ago that talked about the Democratic gameplan on whoever the Supreme Court nominee would be.

1- say the President didn't go to the Senate for advice on who the nominee should be. President kind of deflected that by talking with at least 60 Senators.

2- paint the nominee as an "extremist". Might be hard to do outside of his signing on to the Roe v. Wade document.

3- say the White House hasn't given them all the documents they need in order to fully vet the nominee.

It'll be interesting to see how the Democrats hold off on confirming a guy they recently put on the bench by a unanimous vote. If they don't tread carefully they're going to end up looking like major obstructionists.

But isn't that how the game supposed to be played? The myth of media-fueled polarization demands it. Meanwhile, the Constitution just becomes a buzzword.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Fighting for the sake of opposition?

Sorry, I kind of posted and ran. I meant to say something as well along the lines of what CamEdwards just posted. If the Democrats decide to fight Roberts, once more is known about him, it's made more difficult because of those factors (the factor I posted & the factors Cam posted).

It should be noted that Sen. Reid was withholding judgment tonight (based on his statement).

[Buccaneer]

Understood.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Roberts is not too bad, I think. He's well-qualified, and seems to be a reasonably thoughtful guy. Saw him speak a few months ago and he struck me as likeable and really not an idealogue. He's clearly talented and very smart. I like him better than Gonzalez or any of the other leading candidates.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd like to note that I find it very interesting that in the space of 12 years we go from a quote (the quote NARAL's gone ballistic over) saying he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, to saying, if I read the tone of his 2003 statement right, that he won't work to overturn it, even though it seems he doesn't agree with it.

On top of that, in the earlier period he filed an amicus brief in support of Operation Rescue in one of the various cases in which they were a defendent.

At the moment I'll not comment on this other than to say that I find it interesting.

Let's not jump to conclusions yet, as there's a fair way to go.

[Wolfpack]

I still expect him to become one of the most reviled men in America at some point during this confirmation process. No matter what his protestations about saying RvW being law of the land, the Democrats will not take him at face value at all on it. It has become the way of all things and has worsened in recent years. For something this big, which could have impacts way beyond what happens in the immediate future, I expect the opposition to be loud, hostile, and bitter to the end.

[Buccaneer]

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness." — Senate minority leader Harry Reid (search), D-Nev.

...and anything that gives more power to the Federal Govt outside of the Constitution? No? I didn't think so.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In a way, a clever pick. What I've found on-line so far paints him as a conservative idealogue, but since he doesn't have much of a judicial track record, there's not a lot for the left to tee off on. This will make any fight by the Democrats harder.

Based on the little reading I've done, I agree. But isn't this really going to come down to how threatened the left will feel regarding this guy and Roe v. Wade?

[Solecismic]

This should make Rehnquist feel a little more comfortable about stepping down.

A clever choice, and at least the guy's qualified, but not encouraging news for those of us who support the middle of the road.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

This should make Rehnquist feel a little more comfortable about stepping down.

A clever choice, and at least the guy's qualified, but not encouraging news for those of us who support the middle of the road.

But the middle of the road is so hard to find these days. As a centrist, essentially a conservative Democrat (Sam Nunn, John Kennedy, John Breaux), I find myself basically without a political party, though my voter registration card still says Democrat. The center is unfriendly turf these days.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by JW

But the middle of the road is so hard to find these days. As a centrist, essentially a conservative Democrat (Sam Nunn, John Kennedy, John Breaux), I find myself basically without a political party, though my voter registration card still says Democrat. The center is unfriendly turf these days.

You aren't alone.

[Crapshoot]

Another good article on Roberts..

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

[Mr. Wednesday]

In contrast, I like to think of myself as a centrist (in the "political compass", I come out farther left than I'd like to think I am, but I also lean decidedly libertarian), but the GOP keeps doing stuff that pushes me toward voting straight Democrat.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

In contrast, I like to think of myself as a centrist (in the "political compass", I come out farther left than I'd like to think I am, but I also lean decidedly libertarian), but the GOP keeps doing stuff that pushes me toward voting straight Democrat.

The compass has more than two directions.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The compass has more than two directions.

The view in the libertarian cheap seats must be a comfy one. Coke and Pepsi are crap, but a regional one nobody drinks is great. Or how about how crappy Windows is and how great FreeBSD is. Or how all national bands are crappy sellouts with bad music but this local one is great.

SI

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

The compass has more than two directions.

If the libertarians were realistic, and not idealists, I might consider voting for them, but most of their ideas are completely unworkable and out-of-touch with how the world really works.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JW

Based on the little reading I've done, I agree. But isn't this really going to come down to how threatened the left will feel regarding this guy and Roe v. Wade?

First of all, I'm not sure one should cast Roe v. Wade as a litmus test merely for the left. Since a majority of the country supports a woman's right to choose, and the country is almost unanimous in supporting such a procedure when the woman's life or health is in danger,* or in cases such as rape or incest, I'd argue that it's at least a litmus test for the center of the political spectrum as well.

That said, for SC nominees in general, I think it's one of several litmus tests the Democratic party uses, but yes, perhaps the most important. I don't see the Democratic party allowing someone to go through who's going to overturn Roe v. Wade.

For John Roberts in specific? I think the fact that he flip-flopped his position in the space of 12 years, along with the existing importance of the issue, will make it a huge, huge issue for his confirmation hearings.


On another subject, I'd like to concur with those who have stated that it's nice that Bush actually nominated someone who's, at least, clearly a good lawyer & legal mind. I was really worried he'd nominate someone like Janice Brown, for instance.


* Source.

[Arles]

I keep seeing Roberts referred to as a conservative, but it seems to me he is much more of a constructionist. He is extremely bright, has one of the top records of winning cases in the Supreme Court and has had enormous bi-partisan support throughout his career (including an overwhleming vote to the circuit court while Estrada and others were being stonewalled). If this is an "extreme canidate" then I think it's safe to say the left will view any conservative as extreme. I don't see any basis for the "gang of 14" to go with a filibuster here given what they agreed to.

The angle to oppose him will be to try and pin him on specific cases that he may hear on the Supreme Court (a la abortion, property and environmental issues). And, for some reason, I don't see the current democrats as being as considerate to his wishes not to comment on potential Supreme court cases as the right was with Ruth Bader Ginsburgh in the 90s or the left in the 80s was with Scalia.

[Wolfpack]

Doesn't the "Gang of 14" deal only applies to lower courts? I thought the bets were off on Supreme Court nominations.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Doesn't the "Gang of 14" deal only applies to lower courts? I thought the bets were off on Supreme Court nominations.

I will guarantee you that if the "Gang of 14" goes along with a filibuster for someone that passed with flying colors for the Washington circuit court, the republicans will not pass Go nor collect $200, but go directly to the nuclear option.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I keep seeing Roberts referred to as a conservative, but it seems to me he is much more of a constructionist.

Jeez, that's not been my take at all (from what I've read so far). But perhaps we should move to the new thread now.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

For John Roberts in specific? I think the fact that he flip-flopped his position in the space of 12 years

I think 12 years is enough time for case law and a change of information for someone to go from feeling the decision was a bit dicey to one that is on more stable footing. Heck, 12 years ago I don't think many people would have thought the Supreme Court would have allowed the government to take someone's property for the sole intent of handing it over to another entity. And, I expect many offsets on current laws (given the buildup of case decisions) over the next decade as well. In fact, the idea that Roberts could adjust his personal decisions on an hot-button issue like Roe V. Wade over the span of 12 years of case law shows me that he is much less of an ideologue than what he is being protrayed as. Heck, if case law and prior decisions can impact his opinion on abortion, I would think it can impact his decision on anything - which is a very good thing.

Also, IIRC, Roberts wasn't the author of the brief in 1990, he only was a contributor, and didn't argue the case before the SCOTUS.

[JW]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I'm not sure one should cast Roe v. Wade as a litmus test merely for the left. Since a majority of the country supports a woman's right to choose, and the country is almost unanimous in supporting such a procedure when the woman's life or health is in danger,* or in cases such as rape or incest, I'd argue that it's at least a litmus test for the center of the political spectrum as well.

That said, for SC nominees in general, I think it's one of several litmus tests the Democratic party uses, but yes, perhaps the most important. I don't see the Democratic party allowing someone to go through who's going to overturn Roe v. Wade.

For John Roberts in specific? I think the fact that he flip-flopped his position in the space of 12 years, along with the existing importance of the issue, will make it a huge, huge issue for his confirmation hearings.


On another subject, I'd like to concur with those who have stated that it's nice that Bush actually nominated someone who's, at least, clearly a good lawyer & legal mind. I was really worried he'd nominate someone like Janice Brown, for instance.


* Source.

I don't disagree. I just think that in this case, with this nominee, that the left will focus in on Roe v. Wade far more than the right.

As for Roe v. Wade and abortion rights in general, it is too bad that the abortion debate in general is driven by those at both extremes. Most Americans according to the data I've read support abortion rights with just a few reasonable restrictions (no right is absolute in our system) such as reasonable parental notification laws, for example. Unfortunately, the extremists on the left fight against even reasonable restrictions while extemists on the right work to end all abortion rights.