John G. Roberts Jr. as Supreme Court nominee


Recommended Posts

President Bush has picked Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Roberts, 50, is a conservative who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, his name has been floated for months as a possible Bush selection for the high court.

Bush will announce his nominee to the American public at 9 p.m. EDT. Roberts will presumably appear alongside the president.

Roberts' nomination comes as a surprise after an all-day festival of speculation in Washington and on the cable news networks, where the race was handicapped in favor of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith "Joy" Clement. Clement was seen as an uncontroversial, moderate jurist who would likely be passed through Congress without an enormous fight.

But as evening approached, ABC News broke the news that Clement herself said she had not been selected. That led to speculation that Bush would go with a more conservative nominee, one who would please his ardent supporters.

Earlier in the day, Bush was cagey about whether he'd name his pick on Tuesday.

"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds, but who share the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said when asked by reporters Tuesday during a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is ... I'm confident about where we are in the process."

Two Republican sources very close to the Supreme Court nomination process told FOX News that the groundwork had been laid for a public disclosure, but the timing of the announcement was up to Bush.

Earlier on Tuesday, FOX News learned that Clement was interviewed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a possible sign that she is the choice for the high court. Activists had already prepared a video testimonial from long-time lawyer friends of Clement.

White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered to replace retiring O'Connor, who was the first woman on the court.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163025,00.html

Edited by Hurmoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:unsure: You'd think this topic would be a little more popular. Well, anyone know what this guy is like?

586239768[/snapback]

He's 50 years old. White, male, and Christian. He use to work for Ken Starr, the guy that hounded Clinton for years. Appears to your typical big business & wealthy favoring and religious advocate conservative. We'll see.

Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's 50 years old.  White, male, and Christian.  He use to work for Ken Starr, the guy that hounded Clinton for years.  Appears to your typical big business & wealthy favoring and religious advocate conservative.  We'll see.

Wikipedia.

586239815[/snapback]

ooohhh... the horror!!! White, male, AAANNNNDDD Christian?!?!?!??! AAAUUUGGHGHH SAVE US ALLL!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooohhh... the horror!!! White, male, AAANNNNDDD Christian?!?!?!??! AAAUUUGGHGHH SAVE US ALLL!!!!!!!

586239847[/snapback]

^ :laugh:

I think he is an awesome choice from what I've read. Grant it, not much is really known about his personal views, so we'll just have to wait and see. I am trying to get his opinions from the D.C. Circuit Court and will judge from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really like it that we now have a Republican majority in the Legislative branch, a Republican executive, and now a conservative Judicial. It won't be that bad if he is a true conservative and not a neoconservative, because then he would tend to preserve personal rights. I think the democrats are and should be gearing up for a massive campaign for 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the democrats are and should be gearing up for a massive campaign for 2008.

586239986[/snapback]

The problem is that the democrats won't be able to win with Hilary Clinton. I just don't see her getting the vote from the American people :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the democrats won't be able to win with Hilary Clinton. I just don't see her getting the vote from the American people :no:

586240013[/snapback]

I would much rather see the Democrats run a centrist campaign focused on domestic issues like personal rights, the economy, the federal budget, etc. etc. That's the problem with the U.S., we really need a right wing party, left wing pary, and centrist party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected worse from this President....I think he'll probably get the nod.

Too bad. Anybody who supported Star in his witch hunt is imho, not much of a supporter of the Constitution. Me no care which side of his mouth he's lying out of.

On a good note, I would have to assume he's not to be a rubber stamp for Scalia, like Thomas. (A man who's only original thought is to wonder how it would be to have a whanger the size of John Holmes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would much rather see the Democrats run a centrist campaign focused on domestic issues like personal rights, the economy, the federal budget, etc. etc.  That's the problem with the U.S., we really need a right wing party, left wing pary, and centrist party.

586240033[/snapback]

Agreed. IMHO the country isn't red.....it isn't blue, it's purple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion: In a brief before the Supreme Court (Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), he wrote, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court?s conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

It should be noted that he was writing this brief in his capacity as Deputy Solicitor General, and was representing the opinion of the George H. W. Bush administration. This may or may not reflect his own personal jurisprudence with regard to Roe.

Environment: John Roberts has often both in his public and private wortaken a position against environmental regulationb>. Robertargued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations b>in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.

Votes: As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts voted with two colleagues to uphold the arrest and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating french fries on the Metro train, though his opinion noted that "[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation." In another case, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion that suggested Congress might lack the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate the treatment of a certain species of wildlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

only thing i have to say is that bush is hedging his legacy. get the conservative in and if rhenquist resigns THEN MAYBE he will pick a middle of the road person. i expected this to some extent. i'm just hoping that rhenquist holds on till after this administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion: In a brief before the Supreme Court (Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), he wrote, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court?s conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

It should be noted that he was writing this brief in his capacity as Deputy Solicitor General, and was representing the opinion of the George H. W. Bush administration. This may or may not reflect his own personal jurisprudence with regard to Roe.

Environment: John Roberts has often both in his public and private wortaken a position against environmental regulationb>. Robertargued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations b>in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.

Votes: As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts voted with two colleagues to uphold the arrest and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating french fries on the Metro train, though his opinion noted that "[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation." In another case, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion that suggested Congress might lack the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate the treatment of a certain species of wildlife.

586240083[/snapback]

I think this judge also has respected the precedence set by Roe vs. Wade. This sounds slightly biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

only thing i have to say is that bush is hedging his legacy.  get the conservative in and if rhenquist resigns THEN MAYBE he will pick a middle of the road person.  i expected this to some extent. i'm just hoping that rhenquist holds on till after this administration.

586240082[/snapback]

I don't see him picking a "moderate" for The Court. I see him picking someone even more conservative to replace Rehnquist. I would personally love to see him pick Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to fill the empty spot of Rehnquist (if that happens during his second term), and nominate current Justice Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice :yes:

... we really need a right wing party, left wing pary, and centrist party.

586240033[/snapback]

Personally, I think we need to get rid of Republican, Democrat and just have Liberal (left), Moderate (centrist), and Conservative (right).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God help us all.....

586240142[/snapback]

:laugh: I'm guessing you oppose me? I think Judge Alito would do an awesome job of keeping the Constitution intact, unlike activist judges who write law from the bench... which is not what The Court was created for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see him picking a "moderate" for The Court. I see him picking someone even more conservative to replace Rehnquist. I would personally love to see him pick Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to fill the empty spot of Rehnquist (if that happens during his second term), and nominate current Justice Antonin Scalia as Chief Justice :yes:

586240130[/snapback]

God help us all.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i merged the threads because they're pretty similar.

ooohhh... the horror!!! White, male, AAANNNNDDD Christian?!?!?!??! AAAUUUGGHGHH SAVE US ALLL!!!!!!!

586239847[/snapback]

come on, this doesn't contribute anything.

one can only hope he's level-headed. i don't need crazy activist judges trying to bend the law to suit their values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one can only hope he's level-headed.  i don't need crazy activist judges trying to bend the law to suit their values.

586240166[/snapback]

I agree. Which is why an "originalist" was nominate ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Which is why an "originalist" was nominate ;)

586240183[/snapback]

"originalist" doesn't mean much. you can be an originalist, but still manipulate the law to fit what you think is the original intent.

we'll see how this whole process goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i merged the threads because they're pretty similar.

come on, this doesn't contribute anything.

one can only hope he's level-headed.  i don't need crazy activist judges trying to bend the law to suit their values.

586240166[/snapback]

According to CNN, the judge is conservative, but also is very smart and intellectual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to CNN, the judge is conservative, but also is very smart and intellectual.

586240202[/snapback]

Wikipedia has this about his education:

He graduated summa ###### laude from Harvard College, in only three years, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1976 and received his law degree magna ###### laude from Harvard Law School (where he was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review) in 1979.

So he isn't no idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia has this about his education:

So he isn't no idiot.

586240250[/snapback]

Alot of dumb people went to ivy league schools

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of dumb people went to ivy league schools

586240262[/snapback]

But how many of them gradutated summa ###### laude in just three years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how many of them gradutated summa ###### laude in just three years?

586240269[/snapback]

quite a few dumb people. there always are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.