[BRussell]

Well, that's only a guess, but I just heard he's going to nominate someone in a few hours.

[Railroader]

[sek929]

My sources say this guy:

[RAILhead]

John Roberts.

Link

[RAILhead]

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

John Roberts.

I'm not sure if Bush really wanted to nominate someone from Buffalo. He's prospects are probably going to look good, but then his confirmation will sail wide right.

[loki74]

HA. Ha. ha. Then all the liberals can go deep into denial when there are reasonable people (probably what you call "extreme right winger") with the greater amount of say in all 3 branches!!

once again:

[UNTeMac]

All about him HERE.

Some points of interest:

For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by UNTiMac

Some points of interest:

I assume you're trying to remain unbiased, but I would call those "Some points of worry."

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by UNTiMac

All about him HERE.

Some points of interest:

sounds like he will be an excellent justice. I disagree with some of his opinions but overall sounds supurb and well within the mainstream.




<edited inadvertant suburban reference> laughing

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

overall sounds suburb

Is that because he's from Buffalo and you're from NYC?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by UNTiMac

All about him HERE.

Some points of interest:

Do you realize it is fundamentally wrong to assume that a lawyer's briefs and his personal views coincide? Lawyers argue on behalf of their clients. What they argue on behalf of their clients might be what they would argue on their own behalf, or might not be even close to what they personally think.

Anything he authored as a judge is reasonably fair game as his opinion (subject to binding precident, and subject to the procedural posture of the case). Any law journal articles he may have authored can also be assumed to be his own views. But briefs he filed on behalf of clients don't necessarily reflect his views, and it is wrong to assume that they do.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Do you realize it is fundamentally wrong to assume that a lawyer's briefs and his personal views coincide? Lawyers argue on behalf of their clients. What they argue on behalf of their clients might be what they would argue on their own behalf, or might not be even close to what they personally think.

Anything he authored as a judge is reasonably fair game as his opinion (subject to binding precident, and subject to the procedural posture of the case). Any law journal articles he may have authored can also be assumed to be his own views. But briefs he filed on behalf of clients don't necessarily reflect his views, and it is wrong to assume that they do.

Ok.. But they also "might be close to what they personally think", and "might reflect his views."

I'm sure we'll be learning a lot more in the coming months.

[chabig]

It shouldn't matter what his personal views are. Supreme Court judges are supposed to look to the US Constitution for guidance, not their own personal whims.

[loki74]

exactly... which makes me wonder, why do all these democrats want to know his personal whims?

[CreepingDeth]

Wish we had a libertarian justice…

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by loki74

exactly... which makes me wonder, why do all these democrats want to know his personal whims?

I wouldn't necessarily call past judicial decisions "personal whims." Reading about how a judge has written and adjudicated in the past can say a lot about how they will in the future. Anyone who wants certain cases to remain law would probably want to know a little bit about how the balance of the court may shift for each decision based on this new nomination (pending confirmation, that is.)

This whole silliness about "judges are only supposed to interpret the constitution, not enforce their own views" is just that...silly. All you have to do is look at the myriad interpretations of the bible and you know that there's no one "correct" way...only ones you like or don't like.

[CreepingDeth]

Do you think the Founders said, "Hey, let's write it so that it can be used in any way, so as to justify anything"?

No. It's not written in metaphors.

[UNTeMac]

Originally Posted by CreepingDeth

Do you think the Founders said, "Hey, let's write it so that it can be used in any way, so as to justify anything"?

No. It's not written in metaphors.

this from the man who said he wanted a libertarian justice. Look, all I'm saying is that it's impossible for any justice not to be influenced by his/her own views. They have a mind and it's not impartial, no matter how hard they try. Humans just don't work that way. Each justice approaches each question in different ways. Let's not forget there are people who believe the bible was literally written by God and is not open to "interpretation," however misguided that may be. This view represents one point on a wide spectrum of interpretation that can be applied to any imperative document.

[loki74]

Yes the Bible is far more vague...

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

well within the mainstream.

Well he wants to overturn Roe while 65% of the American public feel that some level of abortion is ok. Sounds like he's standing on the right bank of the mainstream, not in it.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by chabig

It shouldn't matter what his personal views are. Supreme Court judges are supposed to look to the US Constitution for guidance, not their own personal whims.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Well he wants to overturn Roe while 65% of the American public feel that some level of abortion is ok. Sounds like he's standing on the right bank of the mainstream, not in it.

Wanting to overturn Roe does not mean you are pro-life or pro-abortion. The reason Roe should be overturned is that the Constitution is silent on the issue. Thus, the Supreme Court should have left it up to the States to debate and legislate appropriately.

Chris

[Moderator]

I don't have any problem with abortion being a state issue......However..given that Dubya wants to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marraige..it aint a stretch to assume he'll try to do the same with abortion...but step 1 is to reverse Roe/Wade

This state right argument is bogus..todays GOP is not interested in state rights...

[dreilly1]

Originally Posted by Moderator

This state right argument is bogus..todays GOP is not interested in state rights...

what do you mean? The GOP is all about State's Rights these days!*


[FONT=Arial Narrow]* = as long as the States are upholding Wholesome Christian Values like allowing the ten commandments on state grounds and are not letting gays get married.[/FONT]

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Well he wants to overturn Roe while 65% of the American public feel that some level of abortion is ok. Sounds like he's standing on the right bank of the mainstream, not in it.

And yet what I read in the paper today was that he said Roe is the law of the land, and although he might not agree with it, it's his duty to uphold the constitution of the United States and he will do that faithfully (paraphrased). From what I've read about Roberts, by all accounts, he's a moderate republican, not an extreme right-winger.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

And yet what I read in the paper today was that he said Roe is the law of the land, and although he might not agree with it, it's his duty to uphold the constitution of the United States and he will do that faithfully (paraphrased).

Yeah, but unlike when you're on a lower court, when you're on the Supreme Court, prior Supreme Court decisions no longer need to be the law of the land.

FWIW, I think overturning Roe would be about the best thing to happen for Democrats in a generation. The activism to pass laws legalizing abortion throughout the country would be a massive shift in politics in the US.

I don't think most liberals are particularly enamored with Roe anyway. Even those of us who like the idea of judicial activism in the name of increasing individual rights would have to admit that Roe definitely is one hella piece of judicial activism.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

what do you mean? The GOP is all about State's Rights these days!*


[FONT=Arial Narrow]* = as long as the States are upholding Wholesome Christian Values like allowing the ten commandments on state grounds and are not letting gays get married.[/FONT]

Best post ever.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Moderator

I don't have any problem with abortion being a state issue......However..given that Dubya wants to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marraige..it aint a stretch to assume he'll try to do the same with abortion...but step 1 is to reverse Roe/Wade

Not to be argumentative, but it wouldn't be necessary to overturn Roe first - we could go ahead and amend the Constitution, whereupon Roe would be moot. But I don't think the public would support such an amendment, which is probably why no one seems to be seriously proposing one.

I don't think the Roe opinion was as much of a stretch as some others do, but I can see their point. As a practical matter, I'm glad it was decided that way, but I wouldn't be that upset if it were overturned - some states would still allow it. Similarly, while I wasn't thrilled about it in a political sense, the recent eminent domain decision wasn't as dire as some think - states are still free to enact narrower eminent domain laws.

This state right argument is bogus..todays GOP is not interested in state rights...

Like fiscal responsibility, the Republican Party seems to have abandonned all pretense of caring about states' rights - I don't think they even bother talking about it any more, no one would take it seriously. It's strictly a matter of political expedience for both sides.

[loki74]

Okay, so this is basically becoming a GOP-bash thread. Thats great

Why the hell are we even talking about Roe v. Wade? AFAIK, Robetrs most recent words on the case were "it was the subtle law of the land," or something like that. The situation in which he wanted to overturn it was entirely different.

You want to talk about fiscal responsibility, eh? Yeah, Bush is really irresponsible, isnt he? (That would be why the economy is feeling good...) Look, the benefits (and superiority of) supply-side economics has been proven time and time again. The whole tax it up like freaking crazy bullsh!t is totally ridiculous, anyone who has taken econ 1 should be able to figure that out...

But why do I care? Roberts will get in, and he is a moderate Judge, in the meainstream, etc. Keep bashing this guy, democrats. You've only got yourselves to make look bad.

[zigzag]

Everything I've read suggests that Roberts is a shrewd choice and would probably make a good justice. Shrewd because he's not much of a lightning rod, which will take the wind out of the Democrats' sails at a time when support for Bush is flagging and he needs a win. When Rehnquist is done, Bush can go for someone more controversial. Good because he appears to be a genuinely smart, not-overly-ideological, well-balanced person, without any goofy or extreme judicial philosophies, unlike Bork and Scalia. I think it'll be a relatively painless confirmation.

[loki74]

Thats the most true thing I've seen in this entire thread... (well, that & ThinkInsanse's post)

[finboy]

Originally Posted by loki74

exactly... which makes me wonder, why do all these democrats want to know his personal whims?

Because they don't want folks to know their personal whims?