So Bush picked the biggest political hack he could find. I’m not surprised. He doesn’t give a fuck about this country or the rule of law or judicial impartiality so long as he gets what he wants.
Do we need another white anglo-saxon male on the Supreme Court? How does only 2 years on the bench qualify him above all the other possible candidates who I’m sure have even more experience judging and have equally impressive credentials?
Could he have possibly, just maybe, picked someone who hasn’t been completely in the pockets of the Republican Party for the past 20 years and didn’t directly help him attain the Presidency in the first place? I can understand Cronyism when it comes to selecting your Cabinet and White House Staff, but when it comes to the Supreme Court of the fucking United States, perhaps other concerns could be at stake?
The most disgusting thing about this is that he’ll win the nomination easily.
I may not be a big fan of Bush, but I’m going to do some research on Roberts before I develop my opinion…I think you’ve jumped the shark on this one.
Who would you prefer have been nominated? Why is Roberts a ‘partisan hack’?
I’m not trying to be a dick, but let’s see a more developed argument before we start name-calling.
Well, there is most certainly concern because there’s every indication that this guy is a hard-line conservative, and he’s only 50. There’s going to probably 30 years of this. The next generation might not want it, but they’re stuck with it. I don’t fancy sticking my children with something they likely want, like pollution or deficits. I mean, we really aren’t sure yet whether this whole conservative thing is just a trend, a significant sea change in attitudes, or folly. When someone like Roberts is chosen over a whole passel of candidates with significantly greater judical experience, it’s either because he’s a.) so godamned good, even after only a couple of years on the bench, that he blows away all those more qualified candidates; b.) he’s somebody’s brother-in-law or c.) it’s political pork. I’m leaning towards c.
Yep, this one Pitting was entirely predictable both in tone and lack of actual content. From what I’ve heard so far (admittedly, very little), it could have been much worse.
“Do we need another white anglo-saxon male on the court?” Who the hell cares? It’s strange that talk radio this morning was going on about the fact that big majorities of Americans wanted a woman; and wanted a hispanic. Nobody seemed to have an opinion (or the pollsters didn’t ask) about the judicial philosophy they’d like to see.
There goes the environment, there goes choice, there goes-fill in the blank. The destruction of all I value seems if not imminent, then distinctly possible.
I hope that all these Bushies wake up one morning and realize that they are not martyrs or victims–even when their jobs are outsourced and their air is unbreathable and when the US does not lead the world in technology and research anymore…
yeah-sucky argument. Just a last bleat. I have no rage left for my umb.
Liberal checking in here. I don’t know a lot about this guy, but he seems well-qualified and intelligent. I’m not happy about his stance on abortion, pollution, and the fact that he was a lobbyist. But, what can you do? It looks like he will be confirmed. He definitely seems conservative, but I’m not convinced he’s hard-right just yet. I’ll have to do more reading. Anyone have any cites handy? All I got was an email this morning from MoveOn, but that isn’t 100% reliable either.
Unfortunately, it was very difficult to concentrate on what Bush was saying. His “coke-jaw” was going crazy last night. Every sentance ended with his jaw moving side to side. We kept yelling every time it jerked. Either that man has done a LOT of speed in his past or he’s on it right now.
And, of course, there’s bitching and then there’s bitching, all is not the same. We are grateful to have our shortcomings pointed out to us, but perhaps better done by those that don’t personify those shortcomings in such extravagant abundance.
Its a pity that no moderately conservative judges were available, that Mr. Bush could offer compromise and equanimity, someone with experience equal to Mr. Roberts’ massive *two years * as a judge. If Mr. Bush wishes to exemplify that grand American tradition of “winner takes all, and fuck you!”, certainly that is his privilege, given the massive overwhelming landslide of a mandate, and the massive support he currently enjoys, towering into the low 40’s.
Goes around comes around, Georgie Boy, and today’s pig is tomorrow’s bacon.
As distasteful as I find it to agree with duffer, I’d have to agree that this pitting was inevitable. Hell, Bush could have nominated Jane Fonda, and I’d still have a mailbox full of letters from moveon.org and PFAW decrying his choice.
I, for one, will wait to hear what comes out in the confirmation hearings in September. I’m sure there will be a lot that I don’t like, but I have a feeling it could have been much, much worse.
From the little I have read, he seems like a sharp guy. We could have certainly done worse. Confirm him.
(Not that it matters, but before his final bimbo flame-out, the Clinton White House was floating the idea that Big Bill would accept a seat on the Court. He was trying to pull a Taft, I suppose. How is that for an alternate history/)
Choice a may have something to do with it. He was appointed (though not confirmed) to the same apellate court seat he now holds by the elder Bush at age 37. That wouldn’t have happened if he didn’t have something going for him.
Obviously, he’s too conservative for my taste, but he may be the best I can get right now. I’ll withhold judgement until I learn more.
I’m not fully decided yet, but this guy has two years of experience as a judge? That strikes me as a wee bit odd. Why promote the rookie to the big club?
Pretty much inevitable, as Bush’s track record suggests that if there is a bad decision to be made, Bush will make it.
But you’re right. Before we decry this decision, can we get a complete picture of this guy? So far I’ve gathered that he’s pro-business, pro-pollution, anti-choice, and very very green. Can someone give a more comprehensive list of how he stands on the various issues?
Interesting. I note that Earl Warren is considered quite a heroic Chief Justice by most liberals. Yet his complete lack of bench experience prior to his appointment doesn’t seem to trouble anyone.
Is there some sort of requirement in the Constitution that a nominee must be a prior judge, sitting judge, or even a lawyer?
When I heard he’d been nominated, I shouted out a hearty “who?” I’ve never heard of the guy, and I thought I was fairly up on the whole thing. In fairness I can’t say a thing about it until I learn more about him. Well, except for this thing I’m saying right here.