I’m an atheist, and my political views are best described as libertarian. Obviously, that means I disagree with most of Bush’s views and policies.
That said, the more I hear about Roberts, and the longer I watch these confirmation hearings, the more I think he is as close to perfect as a Supreme Court justice can be, regardless of what side of the aisle you’re on. I can hardly believe that Bush nominated him.
Aside from being extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, I have absolutely no doubts about his impartiality. I have no problem whatsoever believing him when he promises that he can judge cases fairly based solely on the law, not his personal opinions or political goals.
I will be extremely pissed off if the Democrats (or, for that matter, pro-life Republicans) throw a hissy fit and somehow block his confirmation. He is being just as forthcoming as the last few confirmed justices were, and he’s obviously much less of a radical than two of them are.
The fact that both Democrat and Republican lobbyists are bitching about him should say something.
One thing that really made me clench my fists was the president of the National Organization of Women calling him a neanderthal, on the basis of the misinterpretation of a lawyer joke in one fucking private memo he wrote two decades ago, completely ignoring the fact that every woman he’s worked with has expressed a completely opposite opinion.
It’s like these people just assume that they have to oppose him because he’s a Bush nominee, and never stop to consider that he might not really be that bad after all.
First off, yeah, because he’s a Bush nominee, a man revealed to us as the seminal genius of bad choices. You better believe I look askance.
But secondly, the operative word here is “oppose”. Judge Roberts, in my limited estimation, appears to be an honest and intelligent advocate for views I oppose, i.e, running dog jackal of the ruling class. So, sure, I “oppose” Judge Roberts being elevated to ChJust.
On the other hand, I am relieved that Bush cannot nominate Cotton Mather. And I suspect, but cannot prove, that Bush would have installed Butt-Ugly Tony if he thought he could get away with it.
This guy is conservative, but he’s not nuts. Lets quit while we’re behind. All our cards are dealt face up, and the other guy gets to draw twice. Fold.
He’s going to be confirmed. He hasn’t said anything damaging in the hearings, nothing really awful has come out, and I think some Democrats have already pledged to vote for him, which ought to seal the deal.
It’s mind boggling, isn’t it? The guy sounds almost perfect. Some of the questioners sound pretty good too. I’m impressed. Why can’t our representatives always be this thoughtful and incisive?
The guy who’s questioning him now - (9:30 CST - Shumer (sp?) - sounds just like Al Franken.
I wish they’d let Nina Totenberg ask him some questions.
Nor can I, knowing how much of a debt he owes the religious right, how much their support of him depends on appointing antiabortion and antigay judges (though not “activist” ones). It seems implausible that Bush would pick a nominee with so little real record, and actual moderate views, so soon after firmly stating his admiration for the Scalia-Thomas philosophy.
I still think it’s most likely that Roberts is a stealth nominee, one chosen for his ideological reliability, but lack of a record proving it that could be used against him, chosen after giving Bush private assurances. What we’re seeing could be nothing more than good acting. But if he is, that’s still just replacing an old reactionary with a young one. If he really is more moderate and thoughtful and humanistic than Rehnquist, it’s a victory for moderation.
Shouldn’t we have seen the other nomination by now? Or are the Roberts hearings a shakedown cruise for the tactics of stealth nomination, with the announcement of the next one to be made only after the method is proven to work, and with due consideration of Bush’s ability to push another divisive move through a GOP Congress that’s increasingly embarrassed by him?
A friend of mine, when Roberts was first nominated, forwarded me an email from a law school classmate of hers who was on the opposite side of the table from Roberts in an extremely contentious case when he was in private practice. According to this classmate, Roberts joined the case and immediately calmed everyone and everything down, was the soul of courtesy and cooperation with the other side, and generally was a breath of fresh air.
So while this isn’t a comment on his substance, apparently his style really is that collegial and good to deal with.
The fact remains they’re hiding documents that could help people determine if he’s worthy of the job, and he’s not answering questions that would give us a clue on his understanding and interpretation of law. Not to say he’s the only one that’s done that. The system is flawed. It is impossible to judge a person’s fitness for the job if they’re not allowed to (or refuse to) interview. More partisan bullshit and “We the People” are gonna pay.
I’m a staunch Democrat but I have to admit I can’t get very worked up over Roberts. Yeah, I’d prefer a liberal on the court, but with Bush in the White House that’s not going to happen. Roberts comes across as smart, dedicated and sane. I don’t think he’s going to be another Scalia or Thomas and so I’d rather see my party save its big guns for the O’Connor fight.
If opposition swells up enough to stop him (unlikely), is there anyone who even for a moment doubts that Bush could nominate someone less desirable for the spot? I acknowledge that we don’t know everything about the guy, but based on what we do know he looks like an improvement on Rhenquist, someone sort of Kennedy-Souterish.
If I were a Democrat in Congress, I’d praise Bush for making a good choice and wish CJ Roberts the best and hunker down for Round #2. What are the chances Bush can come up with a second palatable nominee?
This was my immediate take. The Democrat powers-that-be had to know, or at least strongly suspect, that there were going to be two appointees coming along, at minimum, during this presidential term. It would have been incredibly wise to ask some probing but non-confrontational questions, confirm him unanimously, and then have a free run at the next guy, assuming it’s someone who is less acceptable. In other words, pick your fights, show that you can be above partisanship, etc.
If he’s really, truly Evil[sup]TM[/sup] and was hiding it all along then it is possible, at least in theory, to impeach a judge.
Word is that the other nomination will not be made until after Roberts is, appropriately, inevitably confirmed.
I’m not happy about him, either. He is far too conservative for my taste. However, he is smart, capable, and knowledgeable. He is certainly as good as I could have expected from this administration. I can only hope that Bush uses the same criteria for the next choice.
We won’t see the second nomination until the first is dealt with. Neither Bush nor the Senate is interested in expending political capital on two confirmation processes simultaneously.
I’d say it’s less a ‘stealth’ nomination that the simple fact that another nomination would impact the current confirmation process. Another candidate out there would inevitably bring out the ‘contrast and compare’ stories for the new nominee and Roberts and that can only hurt Roberts’ chances by revitalizing the opposition.
Once Roberts is confirmed (or not, I suppose. But don’t hold your breath.) the next nominee will come down the pike quickly enough. I have utterly no doubt that, having recently gone through the vetting process on the group that resulted in Roberts nomination, the White House is ready with their second choice already. It’s just a matter of making the announcement.
To me the Roberts nomination is confirmation of where Bush’s true interests lie – not with the militant religious right, as is usually alleged, but with pro-business interests that care more about stability and predictability. Roberts is the perfect choice in this respect – he’ll be a pro-status quo centrist on the Court, which is what the business elites want. The religious right, meaningwhile, gets thrown a (meaningless) bone, namely that Roberts’ wife is on the board of Operation Rescue and that Roberts himself is a traditionalist Catholic.
The Democrats don’t have a real gripe here, even though some pretend they do (and some genuinely worry). It’s the religious right that’s been screwed, and they’ve begun bitching. It’ll be fascinating to see how that plays out in the next nomination.
Is no one else concerned by the fact that John Roberts is 50 and has 2 years of experience as a judge?
I’m not convinced that 2 years is enough experience to be nominated for the highest judicial position in the country. On top of that, we are looking at an appointee that could easily be in office for the next 30 years.
As an American, I realize how important the position of CJ of SCOTUS is. As such, I tried to listen to the good Senators questioning Judge Roberts. I really, really did. But, my word, are the proceedings mind numblingly boring. Who decided to give each senator a half an hour of time? 30 minutes is about 27 1/2 minutes too long, if you ask me. For every second of actual substance, we had to endure five minutes of rambling pontification.
No wonder none of these men have made it past the nomination process for President. At least Bush is entertaining when he speaks, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons.
I kinda hope Roberts doesn’t get confirmed. If this guy isn’t presidential material, I don’t know who is.
There was no question that Bush was going to appoint someone of about Roberts’ age, and he’ll do it again to replace O’Connor. Two or three justices from the same president with 25-30 years each on the Court? That’s one way presidents exert power long after the expiration of their terms.
As for his experience, it’s generally noted in every Roberts thread that a number of CJs (including Earl Warren) were appointed with less experience on the bench than Roberts has (Warren had none). I still have a preference for someone with more experience in the judicial role but Roberts’ level of experience in and of itself doesn’t concern me too greatly.
I have to disagree. While he may be inexperienced as a judge, Roberts has been arguing cases in front of the Supreme Court for most of his career. I’d be willing to bet that he knows the in’s and out’s of the court better than some of the more junior Associate Justices (eg, R.B. Guinsburg) simply because it’s where he made his name.