To be honest, there is very little about the whole nomination/confirmation process that I’m happy with. But, given the current situation, I think it’s a reasonable tactic to use. I didn’t vote for Bush, but in the calculus of weighing the pluses and minuses of both candidates, Bush’s potiential SCOTUS picks were one of the few pluses he got from me. From what I’ve read so far about Roberts, he looks like an outstanding candidate.
I’ve only skimmed this thread. So, if I not the first liberal to voice this, forgive me.
I think this is a no brainer. He’s confirmed automatically. And I approve.
I heard an interview on NPR tonight with a liberal Democrat lawyer buddy of his, and the guy said he’s OK. You’d have to read/hear the whole interview.
Going out on a limb, as I’ve done before, I, an old-style, lefty liberal, who worked the campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern, predict:
This guy is gonna be the best thing that happened to the SCOTUS this decade…for the Liberals around here.
George just shot himself in the foot again.
Partisan hack? Thanks for the laugh.
Actually, I just re-read my post. George probably gets out of a hard place on this choice. The RIGHT will read what cases he took on as a lawyer, and think he’s conservative. One of them. But they’ll be wrong. A lawyer does the best job he can for his client. He doesn’t have to take a position.
George gets out of a jam on this one.
Sure.
Since you’re obviously up on all of this, how about some examples of “judicial activism”?
Only rule is you’re not allowed to link to any right-wing radio hosts.
-Joe
I am using the word activism to describe the act of prescribing new law when one should be interpreting old law. If I’m using the word incorrectly, at least now you know what I mean.
Your comment makes no sense on so many levels. Firstly, I’m not claiming acts of activism. I’m saying that a strict reading of the constitution is the most important factor in deciding who gets the job. I’m not claiming this guy is good or bad in this regard, merely that it is important to ensure that he is good. I’m not even claiming activism by anyone. I certainly don’t know of any, which incidently is no indication whether or not it actually exists. Secondly, this guy is the republican nominee … why on earth would the right wing radio hosts claim he’s an activist.
I get the impression you are not really comprehending things, and just look for keywords. "Oh, he said ‘activism’, he must be accusing people of it and a rapid right wing radio station listener who eats liberal babies’. Quite frankly, at this point you would have a hard time passing the Turing test.
I’m glad you enjoyed it, though that displays a level of self-awareness that is almost sad. Compare and contrast your post with the posts that inspired Metacom to make a list in the first place. Then compare and contrast your post with all the other posts made by reasonable people in this thread.
So, you’re saying that you’re hoping that the #1 thing you hope Roberts gets grilled on is something you don’t understand or really care about.
Brilliant.
Oh, and the Right Wingers Radiobitches won’t trash Roberts. Instead they’ll give him a nice reach around - but Roberts won’t matter. The divine proclomation from On High will be sufficient to make him A Light In The Darkness of liberal activist judges - not that anyone can define that.
-Joe
Rob Cordry on tonight’s The Daily Show:
“Yes Jon, the Left is very upset with Bush’s Supreme Court nomination and has been for weeks.”
(Who says they only mock the right?)
See, this is where I realize that I’m much closer to the center than I am to the far left. I’m reading all of these harangues against the man and thinking that it’s just a little soon to be trying to cut his head off. We don’t know anything about his judicial philosophy yet, other than Bush thinks it jibes with his own. Bush has thought a lot of things in the last five years that weren’t quite true. And nominees, once they get to the bench, HAVE changed their views and their judicial philosophy.
There are two threads at work here. The first one is the fact that this is a DONE DEAL. The Dems in Congress don’t have the patience, ammo, or constituent interest to pursue a scorched-earth policy of opposition to every single nominee Bush puts up. And every single nominee is going to be at least nominally in disagreement with Roe v Wade. No amount of filibustering, obstructionism or simple outrage is going to get this White House to appoint someone who isn’t at least uncomfortable with the way RvW was decided. Not going to happen…give up the hope on this one. That said, Roberts doesn’t seem that bad. He doesn’t appear to be a rabid-right, Benny-Hinn-watching, Dobson-worshipping type. Contrary to the most public face the right has put out there in the last decade or so, there ARE thoughtful, secular-government conservatives.
The second thread is that there are other things going on that we don’t want to push to the background. Roberts is important, but nothing in the whole hullabaloo that would surround his confirmation hearings if the Dems went that direction would have as great a chance to absolutely hurt this administration as the undivided attention of the electorate on the way that the Rove/CIA story falls out. Nothing. The Valerie Wilson leak is this administration’s Watergate, and pulling the story off the front page so we can kick our widdle feetses over someone who hasn’t shown all that alarming a rightist bent is insane.
If the Dems decide to make the confirmation hearings their battleground instead of the Rove rigmarole, they deserve to lose elections for the next generation.
Which just goes to show you what you know, which is squat. Some of them have said that Roberts was a sellout pick and isn’t conservative enough.
I can’t imagine your misunderstanding is genuine, since it’s unlikely someone so fundamentally brain damaged would be able to function in society. But maybe I’m giving you too much credit. Maybe you can’t function in society. Either way, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one and assume that you are deliberately dishonest.
Let me reiterate. I claim to have no knowledge of specific examples of activism. This is mostly true. I can think of one example off the top of my head now that I think about it, the eminent domain case. I think new law was created there which has very little to do with the intentions of the constitution. Something that makes fuck all difference to my completely academic point, which is the following and does not depend on knowledge of specific cases of abuse:
The purpose of a supreme court justice is to interpret the constitution, not to use the post as an opportunity to legislate. It is the senate’s responsibility to aggressively ensure that this is what they are getting in a nominee. Hence, the grilling. Are you with me so far? I’m not making this point specifically for Roberts, but rather in general. These are the responsibilities of the senate in general. If you disagree with this, grow a fucking spine and say so. And say why. Otherwise, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
Christ, am I speaking a foreign language here? How did you go so far wrong in understanding what I was saying? Does anyone else have a clue, or have I generally lost my mind?
I will also say, from what I have read so far about the nominee, that he seems to be a very good choice. Unless there are any surprises I expect him to get nominated, and would approve.
It’s nice to see Mr. Bush conserving his mandate like this. I wonder what big important issue he’s saving it for?
Didn’t you get the memo?
Umm… I’ve said too much already.
See, that’s the magic of it, isn’t it?
The Constitution has fuck-all to do with a huge amount of decisions made by the SCOTUS. That document is not magical, the Founding Fathers were not prescient.
The SCOTUS is there to make decisions - they interpret a document written over 200 years ago and try to apply it to today’s environment. Unless it’s something fantastically obvious (ie. photocopy THIS line from the Constitution, underline it, and wave it under someone’s face), well, they’ve made a decision.
But, if you don’t like the result it’s “legislating from the bench” and it’s being an “activist judge”.
The whole fucking point is that there is no such thing…
Personally, I think Dubya could have picked someone worse. I just wish he’d picked someone a hell of a lot older.
-Joe
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. I think I understand where you are coming from, although I don’t completely agree. Certainly there is some subjectivity involved. And there isn’t a clear line in the sand that differentiates intepretation and creation of laws / the constitution. Anyone who doesn’t see the validity of an intepretation is going to see this as creation of a new law. In this sense, my comments are extremely academic.
But I think intent and a clear understanding of one’s mandate can mimimize these issues. And this is where a nominee’s track record can come in. Ultimately, we’re relying on the senators to have some intellectual honesty and realise a nominee may make decisions that they personally disagree with, but still fall under the intent of the constitution.
I do know why Republican political strategists are terrified that Roe v Wade might actually be overturned – if that happened, their ability to keep the Religious Right on board with pie-in-the-sky promises while not having to acutally do anything that would alienate the pro-choice majority* goes away. Republicans from the hard-core Religious Right pockets of the country would start pushing sweeping bans; Republicans elected from the rest of the country would have to deflect them.
*While many people have serious reservations about abortion, there is a pretty strong national consensus for keeping it legal during at least early pregnancy.
You know, around the election I’d actually thought you’d pulled your head out of your ass.
Ah well.
Let’s see…
Let’s see…for those who don’t want that trash showing up in their cache…
#1 - Vice President Cheney: Judge Roberts Understands Court’s Role
#2 - Reality Sets In for Democrats: President George W. Bush Is In Charge (next to picture of Bush standing next to Roberts)
#3 - Rush’s Supreme Court Stack of Stuff: Battle for the Judiciary Argue with libs over the president’s nomination and the battle to save the Constitution from activist judges
So, let’s see, A-number-one reacharound king Rush Limbaugh doesn’t seem to have a problem.
Who is next?
The man who equates liberals with communists and terrorsts.
Certainly not a glowing endorsement here, but I think the comment “The answer, it appears, is far enough to please his hard-line conservative base, but not much farther.” doesn’t sound like bitching about a “sellout pick”.
Up and coming psycho hosebeast who, upon looking at her page for the first time I realize is pretty hot. I suppose this paragraph is what you think is them being pissed off:
PRESIDENT BUSH–A MAN OF HIS WORD: All we can say is: thank you, Mr. President. Judge John Roberts is a superb choice for the Supreme Court. President Bush did not play p.c. politics with his selection. He did not cave to those who hopedfor the first Hispanic justice (La Raza, et al.), or a woman (his wife!), or a “consensus nominee” (the Dems), or a “balancer” from “outside the federal courts of appeals” (Specter). Instead, President Bush picked someone who is a reliable judicial conservative–not a blank slate a la David Souter or someone who will “evolve” like Anthony Kennedy. Well done!
Ooh! She sounds mad. I hope Dubya can handle such unpleasantness. She’s pretty rough on him.
Man, this is pretty difficult. Well, let’s hit the Ultimate Psycho Cunt’s home page and see what we see.
Lovely Ann (actually, I find the horseface repulsive, but her legs are decent - but I’m not a leg man) isn’t happy, but it doesn’t look like she’s pissed either.
She uses phrases like “Tabula rasa” and “But unfortunately, other than that, we don’t know much about John Roberts”. Her complaint is that, so far, anyone who has been a complete unknown hasn’t turned out as a HappyGoodTime for the Right.
Then again, Mrs. Ed has always been more about attacking Libruls first and everything else second.
So? Where’s all that evidence of a sellout pick?
-Joe
Keep in mine that voters in states across the country weren’t voting as all red or all blue as the electoral maps would have you think. A look at a map of Purple America is a reminder that no party has a real mandate.
I expected the President to appoint a Conservative, not a moderate. I’m keeping an open mind on this nomination. I expected much worse.
I hope that my opinion will not keep me from being placed on the “partisan hack” list. Are their membership dues?