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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, and overturning Roe wouldn’t outlaw one single abortion, assuming the Supremes did overturn Roe. Do you even care about the truth?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
