Plus, usually you don’t hire a whore to fuck somebody else.
I suspect I’ve more exposure to law and gov’t than you have.
The position of Deputy Solicitor General is a political appointment that requires the advise and consent of the Senate. You don’t get the job without being vetted and approved by THE BOSS.
It seems like you, not me, need the civics lesson and to spend some time in the political world.
snickers
After reading this article, I thought you were going to follow that with “lawyers sell themselves for the enrichement of the senior partners as well.”
I kid, I kid.
Yes, I am.
I have no quibble about Scalia and his delicious brain. Actually, I should have put quote marks around that “intelligence” as defined by the “social elite”.
However, if you were to take a baseline Rightist ideology (no cites here…just supposition) and compare it against his decisions, I think you’d find a pragmatist buried under all of the Republican trappings. I don’t follow the SCOTUS too closely, only enough to gain a fair understanding of the personalities involved.
-Cem
More’s the pity - I just had a birthday.
30 points to Hufflepuff for that one.
Your position seems to be that once you are approved and hired, every single document you write from then on is an indication of your personal opinion about a subject.
Granted, I’m no civics expert, but it seems unlikely to me that anyone, regardless of how stringently interviewed they are, is going to personally agree 100% with every position the administration takes over the years. It is his job to argue the administration’s position, and it’s likely he agrees with the vast majority of them, but it is unfair to claim that every single argument he was hired to make is his personal opinion.
On these points, I will wait for the in depth interviews, where this sort of stuff is sure to come up.
Plnnr, Cheesesteak nailed it in one.
Once again, he was representing his boss, not his own personal position.
But, do you generally side with Stevens or with Scalia?
You might want to look at United States v. Eichman. Before you adopt flag burning as a litmus test.
I agree that it is unlikely to be the case that a political appointee is going to agree with his boss every single time, but I would be willing to bet that more times than not anyone that has more than a few philosophical differences with the President isn’t going to get the nod in the first place. If you were President, would you appoint someone that had a different legal philosophy of your own? Of course not.
For those of you looking for more information about Roberts, here’s a link.
The Independent Judiciary is formally opposing Roberts, so read with that in mind.
It looks like most of the points that lefties have against him (overturning Roe vs. Wade, “pro-pollution”, pro religion in schools, etc.) all have to do with his actions as a lawyer and/or Solicitor General. As it has been mentioned already, this does not necessarily mean Roberts himself holds these views.
He’s certainly not my first choice for the position, but like others have said, I think Bush could have done much worse.
Just my two cents.
DoperChic
The Republican Party of 1976 was much different than it is today. Just as there were conservative Democrats, many being Dixiecrat remnants, there was still a sizeable liberal wing in the Republican party.
In 1976, the country was in the midst of a deep recession. Ford was hurt by the state of the economy, his pardon of Richard Nixon, a percieved association with Watergate, and divisiveness in the Republican Party. Still, Ford got 48% of the popular vote in the election.
Carter was a devoit Southern Baptist, but unlike Bush he wasn’t one to mix religion with politics.
“I believe in the separation of church and state and would not use my authority to violate this principle in any way.” – letter to Jack V. Harwell, 11 August 1977
“The government ought to stay out of the prayer business.” – press conference, Washington, D.C., 1979
This post is OT, so I’ll leave it at that.
Sorry about the double post, but I just found another link.
This one is from On The Issues.
Again, much of the information they have on Roberts has to do with positions he took as a lawyer and/or government official.
DC
Is it so fucking hard for the Bush administration to find a candidate for the highest court in the land who has actually been an appellate judge? I don’t know Roberts from Garza yet, but, for fuck’s sake, shouldn’t experience be a huge consideration for any job, yet alone one on the Supreme Court.
Not to jump in and defend Roberts or anything (though I do think the Dems should conserve their political capital for the inevitable Chief Justice fight, as well as not kicking up such a fuss that the Rove/CIA thing is going to be submerged), but Rehnquist had NO judicial experience when he was appointed to the SC.
A few posters have remarked about Bush’s smirking during the speech.
It turns out, now, that this was because the four-year-old Roberts boy broke loose and was horsing around.
As the father of toddlers, I can indeed sympathize.
It’s too bad the camera didn’t cut away and show that; that was pretty good.
Oh my, poor parenting skills and a wife wearing anti-war colors.
The nation is DOOMED!
Hmm…how many Supreme Court justices had long careers as appellate judges?
I know, I know, you’ve gotta dig up something. But this is pretty weak, since many justices weren’t even judges when they were nominated. Please find some new talking points, I don’t think these have much traction.