# Judge John Roberts: Partisan Hack **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2005, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265 "2005-07-20T08:37:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/101 "2005-07-20T18:02:07Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Maybe for traffic court, but not as the Solicitor General. So, which do you think more likely, **plnnr**? 1.) When the Bush administration went hiring for the Justice Department in January of 2001, they asked a hypothetical question about a possible future terrorist attack on the United States requiring detainees to be placed in a military base in Gitmo, and those who answered correctly were hired; 2.) Anyone who agrees with Bush on issues like abortion, affirmative action, and tariffs automatically agrees with Bush on all issues, including the legality of detainees in Gitmo; 3.) After 9/11, Bush told the Justice Department to write up legal justifications and defenses for their handling of detainees, and the members of the Justice Department did so regardless of their personal opinion on the matter, because they had been hired by the Bush administration to argue the Bush administration’s position in court no matter their personal opinion. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/102 "2005-07-20T18:03:59Z")
How dare Bush nominate a white male. Doesn’t he know that the nominee must be a minority and/or woman? It’s not about how capable the nominee is, it’s about what s/he is. /Just sayin’ ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/103 "2005-07-20T18:04:07Z")
**Bricker** -you have just changed for all time the meaning of hoe down for me… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/104 "2005-07-20T18:04:59Z")
As I said before it’s not a matter of ‘just asking’ to have an opinion made. It’s a matter of knowing who is sympathetic to what you want to have happen and asking THAT person to make the case for you. Cherry picking of lawyers, cops, judges et al happens all the time. You can’t say it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/105 "2005-07-20T18:05:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Weakened, yes, refuted, no. > > This is pretty good marketing. For the extreme anti-Roe, we have a wink and a nudge, “He’s One of US, just like the Leader promised, but we can’t say so out loud or the liberals might thwart God’s Will, so keep it under your hat, and we’ll outsmart them!” For pro-choice, the arguments already advanced here: “He was arguing as a professional, his own views aren’t really known, might even be conservative in the sense of not overturning settled cases, could be worse…” > > And when questioned, he’ll clam up Thomas style: why, no, I hadn’t given it much thought, certainly not going to pre-judge cases before they are before me, that would be wrong… > > Shrewd marketing. True, but no different than pretty much any marketing done for an SC nominee since Bork. These days, if you want a Supreme Court position, make sure you never actually say anything that could be considered a stand on any issue. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/106 "2005-07-20T18:08:29Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Solicitor General Candidate: “I’m afraid I disagree, but if that’s what you want me to argue, I’ll have a draft brief written up after lunch. Now, about my parking space…” Pretty much. If he said “I don’t want to write this brief” he’d get fired. Lawyers, to put it bluntly, are intellectual whores. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/107 "2005-07-20T18:12:36Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > I’ve got to disagree with this. In my experience, however much the truth of ‘the lawyer is the advocate’ might apply in general, it does not apply for this slot. > > The Solicitor General’s office is an inherently political one. Each political appointee in that office is going to be thoroughly vetted out in how his views agree/disagree with the administration’s views. If Roberts was up there arguing and writing the brief then it’s not a real leap to believe that he actual believes and supports what he’s writing. If he disagreed then some other lawyer from the SG office would be up there making the case. Look, let’s be honest here. John Roberts is very likely pro-life, at least personally. He’s Catholic, a conservative Republican, he has two adopted children and his wife is a leader in the pro-life movement. Given all of that, frankly I’d be shocked if the man turned out to be a pro-choicer. That does not mean, though, that this position can be implied solely because of his work with the Solicitor General’s office. And even if John Roberts is pro-life, the implications of this personal position when a case concerning Roe vs. Wade comes before him isn’t a settled question by any means. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/108 "2005-07-20T18:20:33Z")
I’m copasetic with Roe v. Wade being overturned. Maybe when the TV idjits have their daughters turning up dead in back alleys with coat hangers up them, they’ll catch on to what “pro life” is all about. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/109 "2005-07-20T18:22:00Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > Right. So if I am perfectly fine with women choosing their roles in society- working in any business, juggling work and children- and support equal pay for equal work, etc.- I’m “always opposed to freedom of choice for women” because I don’t suppot their ‘right’ to have an abortion? > > I guess that fits in with the whole “pro-business that does not directly help the environment is pro-pollution” motif you’ve got going. I’m sure you like kittens and puppies, too. But within the context of abortion, you are still anti-choice, no matter your other views. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/110 "2005-07-20T18:27:30Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > FYI, I don’t know what a Nex is, nor how that got into my post. Latin. Means violent death. SPOOKY! Seriously, this guy… well, it looks like Bush went for someone who could be assured to piss everyone off… but not in a way they could justify filibustering him, excepting only lack of experience. He may be cool. I have bad feelings about the howls of joy on the right, but you know… It might be a pretty good choice after all. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/111 "2005-07-20T18:34:23Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’m copasetic with Roe v. Wade being overturned. Maybe when the TV idjits have their daughters turning up dead in back alleys with coat hangers up them, they’ll catch on to what “pro life” is all about. I’m as pro-choice as anybody, but your post raises one question in my mind: Do facts even matter to you in the zealous pursuit of your agenda? Cecil explodes the “thousands of women dying in back alley abortions” myth [here](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040528.html), and overturning _Roe_ wouldn’t outlaw one single abortion, assuming the Supremes did overturn _Roe_. Do you even care about the truth? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/112 "2005-07-20T18:37:21Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I’m sure you like kittens and puppies, too. But within the context of abortion, you are still anti-choice, no matter your other views. And you are still an idiot, though your other views actually do matter, as they contribute. ---
**Author:** ![Cemetery\_Savior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Cemetery\_Savior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cemetery_Savior)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/113 "2005-07-20T18:38:06Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Lawyers, to put it bluntly, are intellectual whores. Wow…calling Dr. Broadbrush…calling Dr. Broadbrush! In the days leading up the the selection of John Roberts, I listened to an interesting NPR discussion between a U of Chicago Law professor and a Columbia professor (sorry…names escape). As NPR usually does, they tried for both ends of the ideological spectrum. Both agreed to the fact that even “conservative” appointees tend to become more liberal over time on the bench. The reason they both gave was one of socialization. Apparently, to hang with the social elite in Washington, you have to be intelligent (since I’m paraphrasing, feel free to insert ironic/cynical quote marks at will), and in Wahsington, this is somehow paired with slightly Liberal leanings. So, it was posited that over time, all SCJ’s tend to become more centrist over time (Liberal appointees, too). It was near the beginning of the thread (my apologies for no biblio), but someone mentioned that the political “ideology” doesn’t matter as much as an appointee’s judicial philosophy. I think that if one were to review decisions over time, one would find a tendency to align with an approach to the judiciary instead of “right vs. left” crap. -Cem ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/114 "2005-07-20T18:44:11Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Cecil explodes the “thousands of women dying in back alley abortions” myth [here](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040528.html), and overturning _Roe_ wouldn’t outlaw one single abortion, assuming the Supremes did overturn _Roe_. Do you even care about the truth? That could be, but wait 15 years and [see what happens to the crime rate](http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php). From the site: > [@](#): > > In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime. > > [snip] > > In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. If the crime rate begins to rise a coupleof decades after abortion is recroiminalized, you can bet Republicans – in the future possibly far more to the right than they are today – will find a way to blame liberals. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/115 "2005-07-20T18:46:19Z")
I’ll correct myself and take back “recriminalize abortion.” However, states will be left up to their own advices in a world without Roe v Wade, and you can bet that many will ban abortion outright. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/116 "2005-07-20T18:53:18Z")
> [@Cemetery Savior](#): > > So, it was posited that over time, all SCJ’s tend to become more centrist over time (Liberal appointees, too). Thomas may be something of a mental midget among his peers (still can’t make my mind up on that one), but Scalia is rightly recognized as perhaps the most keen intellect on the SCOTUS presently. If he’s become “liberalized” during his tenure, somebody forgot to tell me. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/117 "2005-07-20T18:56:23Z")
I don’t know why people are so worried about Roe v Wade. If it’s overturned the legislature will jump at the chance to tackle the issue. It would be made legal as it always should have been: Through the legislature, not the courts. There is overwhelming support for legal abortions in the US. If the Republicans tried to outlaw abortions, the Democrats would ride that issue all the way to win the presidency and both houses without breaking a sweat. I’m as pro-choice as most dopers, but please… Roe was a stupid decision. Appointing SCOTUS judges is far too important for half the country to only care about a single issue: the persons stance on abortions. Having an issue of that importance at the complete control of 9 unnacountable people who have absolutely no legal basis to even be making the decision for us is just a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/118 "2005-07-20T19:08:58Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Pretty much. If he said “I don’t want to write this brief” he’d get fired. Lawyers, to put it bluntly, are intellectual whores. I don’t agree with that. Whores sell sex solely for their own enrichment. If lawyers were intellectual whores, they would sell the fruits of their intellect solely for their own enrichment. They do not do this, however. They participate in our system of adversarial justice. They fill a desperately needed role, supplying advocacy to each side of every dispute. Lawyers work to serve the needs of our system. Of course, they are paid for their efforts. But they serve a role beyond that of their own enrichment. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/119 "2005-07-20T19:17:45Z")
Whores don’t fill a desperately needed role too? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/120 "2005-07-20T19:18:22Z")
**Debaser** : Well, some pro-choice folks have already expressed the concern on this board that the overturning of Roe will herald an immediate passing of a _federal_ anti-abortion law. I personally doubt the ease with which some folks think it’ll pass (and stick), but that’s where that concern comes from. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265.md?page=7)