Look scooter, I have no judicial heroes and am not a liberal. I think that if we are looking at the big court, we should find someone who isn’t still in judicial training robes and using the foam practice gavel.
I’m wondering that myself. I don’t think there is, but I’m pretty damn far from being an expert.
His point is valid. Experience is not and has not been an indicator of how Supreme Court justices will perform, and therefore it is a red herring, especially when you consider that some of the greatest Supreme Court justices were never judges prior to their ascension to the court.
To answer my own question, I don’t think anyone can. No one seems to know much about this guy except that he’s very pro-life.
Like I said, I’m no expert. The “liberal/hero” remark just bristled me a bit.
And my concern over lack of experience is my own thing. That’s why I put the “I think” in there. It may not be a negative, but it’s not a positive either. I’m not fully decided on him and won’t be until I find out how Jerry Falwell feels. His rookie status just raises my eyebrow a bit.
Tell ya what, I’ll give it another day or two before I post a long and shrill screed against him. 
FTR, Earl Warren was no babe in the woods. He came to the Supreme Court after a long run as Governor of California (and 1948 GOP VP nominee), preceded by substantial experience as District Attorney and state Attorney General. Recall as well that part of O’Connor’s attractiveness as a nominee was her time in the Arizona Legislature. Many disagree, sure, but for those of us who recognize the Supreme Court as a political actor on a par with Congress and the Presidency, political experience is most certainly a qualification.
But Roberts’ record is pretty spotty there, too. So why the choice? Don’t we have a basis to be suspicious that this is a stealth pick, yet another nominee who has no record to consider and may be willing to say whatever it takes to get that lifetime position - then watch out. Is it unreasonable to think a guy who was chosen by Bush 1 to argue for the overturning of Roe might have an understanding with Bush 2 that he would do exactly that?
The man has clerked for a federal appeals court judge and for Chief Justice Rehnquist. He was a special assistant to the Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, and later Associate Counsel to President Reagan.
He later served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. He’s currently an appeals court judge. He’s argued cases before the Supreme Court many times.
And he did this all by the age of fifty.
This guy is no political or legal neophyte, from the looks of it.
Rehnquist once clerked for Justice Robert Jackson. After that, no judicial experience at all. Nixon picked him out of the Justice Department.
Laurence Tribe. hey, I can dream, can’t I?
Nope. The Constitution imposes no qualification requirements on federal judges of any level before appointment. As far as I can tell there isn’t even a requirement that they be United States citizens (although as a practical matter I doubt a non-citizen, if nominated, would make it through the Senate).
At Judge Roberts practiced law before he became a judge.
Clarence Thomas was a bureaucrat who just so happened to have a law degree before he became an Appeals Court Judge.
At least Roberts has the capability of making a decision without having to run it past Antonin Scalia first.
His extemp preformance at the podium made me wish that on those rare occasions in my life that I had to hire lawyers, I’d have had the money to hire one like this one.
Despite my considerable contempt for the idiot who “appointed”( I question whether GWB made the appointment or a committee of knowledgeable people actually vetted Roberts and handed a dumbed-down canned speech to GWB) Judge Roberts, the man left me with a favorable first impression.
I agree with other posters’ observations about GWB’s speech. The man has a “perma-smirk” on his face that’s totally un-Presidential. Why couldn’t President Cheney have found a smoothie ,ala Reagan, to be his front man? This guy’s painful to watch or to listen to.
At this point in time, I think the only people we can call “partisan hacks” in this matter are Blalron, eleanorigby, and elucidator.
From some sources, contempt is a badge of honor to wear proudly. We thank you.
Oh, give it a rest.
I dislike Bush as much as most people on this board, but the amount of melodramatic hand-wringing and overreaction that goes on is unbelievable.
We’ve survived some bad presidents, we’ll survive this one. And curiously, only one of the three things you listed as impending disasters is something that you could blame the government for.
Y’all consider it a badge of honor to be called a partisan hack by a liberal, bleeding-heart democratic socialist?
You’re welcome, I guess.
Hmmm. Going over the list of Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, and we find…
John Jay: experience as a lawyer and as Secretary of State, no judicial experience.
Oliver Ellsworth: Connecticut’s State Attorney for eight years, then a senator. No judicial experience.
John Marshall: Lawyer, Virginia State Delegate, Congressman. No judicial experience.
Roger Taney: Lawyer, Attorney General of Maryland, Attorney General of the United States. No judicial experience.
Salmon Chase: Lawyer, Senator, Governor of Ohio. No judicial experience.
Morrison Waite: Lawyer, Ohio State Senator. No judicial experience, though his father was a judge.
Melville Fuller: Lawyer, member of the Illinois House of Representatives. No judicial experience.
Edward White: Lawyer, Associate Justice in the Supreme Court of Lousiana for less than two years, Senator.
Okay, so I’m up to Chief Justices from 1789 to 1921, and they all together have less judicial experience than Roberts.
William Howard Taft: Federal Judge for the Sixth Court of Appeals.
Charles Evans Hughes: Lawyer, Governor of New York. No judicial experience.
Harlan Stone: Lawyer, Attorney General of the United States. No judicial experience.
Frederick Vinson: Lawyer, Commonwealth Attorney for Kentucky. Five years on the Federal Bench.
Earl Warren: Lawyer, District Attorney for San Francisco county, Governor of Califronia. No judicial experience.
Warren Burger: Lawyer, Assistant Attorney General, served on the United States Court of Appeals for 13 years.
William Rehnquist: Lawyer, Assistant Attorney General. No judicial experience.
Okay, so of 15 Chief Justices, Roberts has more judicial experience in his two years than 13 of them.
So? Bush nominated him. That proves that he’s going to forbid birth control, rule that evolution can’t be taught in public schools, find no constitutional problem with making the Southern Baptist Convention the official state religion, and dissent (along with Scalia) from the majority opinion in the infamous ruling that held the “Divergent Opinion Peace And Reunification Using Corporal Activities Act” (DOPARUCAA, aka the “All Liberals May Be Beaten With a Sand-Filled Hose Until They Either Die or See the Light Act”) of 2012.
Q.E.D.
To paraphrase Disraeli, I can deal with my enemies, Heaven protect me from my allies.
I can live with all that as long as he overturns the designated hitter rule.
Only teams owned by RNC donors will be allowed to use a designated hitter. In both leagues.
Well, from what I’ve seen from what little reading I’ve done on him so far, he appears to be an extremely intelligent person, which already puts him ahead of Thomas. He is very pro-life, but from what I’ve seen it appears to at least be intellectually honest, and not of the blind rabid variety. I didn’t expect any olive branch nominations from Bush because he’s an asshole that thinks he has a mandate and that’s the way he acts. But he could have done much worse.
My opinion could change as I learn more.
An interesting comment I heard last night when all the talking heads on CNN were discussing Roberts was that a conservative judge doesn’t necessarily vote the way a conservative politician would. And before all you pro-choicers start crying too hard, note that he has also gone on record as saying that Roe v Wade is the law of the land and he would have no problem upholding it (cite is the talking heads, whoever they were).
Doesn’t sound like too much of a “partisan hack” to me.
Pro-pollution? “I’d like to go on record as stating that I am against clean air and water. These things are a detriment to Truth, Justice, and the American Way. I promise that if nominated and confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, I will do everything in my power to end these threats to our Liberty and bring order to the galaxy.”
