I know this plays against the cartoonish stereotypes that people have about liberals, but I just wanted to say something about John G. Roberts...
From everything I have seen and read so far, he seems like a reasonable and contemplative jurist.
I don't have to agree with the guy politically, and I probably don't, but as long as his legal reasoning is sound and he approaches his job without an agenda, then I'm fine with him.
I've seen no indications that he's anything other this.
So, for my money, I say confirm him, no fuss no fight.
Who's shocked and surprised at this statement? If you are then you don't give me enough credit.
Yes it's true that I have a lot of personal animosity to most of the policies and rhetoric the comes from the right, but it is because I disagree with the policies and the rhetoric themselves, rather than just disagreeing because it comes from the other end of the political spectrum.
The problems that I have with the Bush Administration, and there are many, have never been about being a knee-jerk Bush hater.
The reason I have for my dissent are real and deliberate. The same goes when I can agree with decisions President Bush makes, and this nomination thus far seems to be one of those decisions, and I even laud the President' call for civility during this process.
Barring something that gives me a real reason to conclude otherwise, the choice of John G. Roberts as the nominee to the Supreme Court seems to have been handled in a serious way by serious people, and I respect their choice.
So, let the confirmation hearings be fair and reasonable, and if he shows himself to be the same, I offer my congratulations to Judge Roberts on this rarest of achievements.
Here's to Justice Roberts, and may God bless him for the process he is about to endure. May it be swift and painless.
-The Oklahoma Hippy
Ah but every Judge has an agenda regardless of how much they deny it.
ReplyDeleteI say let's not take the bait and waste our precious hours talking about this appointment. It will get no better as long as we have the Bushist regime, and the important news is the pending demise of the regime. If you need something else to worry about, let it be the Global Warming, which is a problem beyond imagination.
ReplyDeleteJohn Roberts
ReplyDeleteNominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.
Alliance for Justice Resources:
* Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
* Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts
* Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
* B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
* 1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
* 1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
* U.S. Department of Justice
o 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
o 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
* 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
* Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
o 1986-89, Associate
o 1993-present, Partner
General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.
Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.
Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.
As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5
Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.
Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7
Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.
Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.
Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.
1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).
The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:
Organization Position
Alliance for Justice Opposes
This doesn't look good to me. Granted the choice could have been much worse but a disastrous choice regardless.
ReplyDeleteNow hold on baby, he doesnt sound that bad. Any word on his position for glbt marriages?
ReplyDeleteThere is very little if any info about his gay and lesbian views. Any and all glbt groups sites I have visited oppose him, but that may just be general disagreement with ideals.
ReplyDeleteI commend the Hippy for a sensible, thoughtful analysis of the nominee. And, yes, I'm a moderate who leans Democrat.
ReplyDeleteThe only way I can see Roberts not getting a swift confirmation is if he says something alarming in the Senate hearings, like he stabbed puppies for a hobby or something.
Yeah, his views on GLBT issues aren't clear, and neither is very much else...
ReplyDeleteLook for my newest post to tell you why I have real respect for the guy...