# Roberts had damn well better get confirmed...

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [September 15, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737 "2005-09-15T05:11:11Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 10\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/21 "2005-09-16T14:20:14Z")

</div>

> [@Sal Ammoniac](#):
>
> 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.

Boy, that’s the truth. Republican presidents have been playing the pro-life crowd since Reagan. Bush has no reason to expend a lot of effort getting Roe V Wade overturned because he (and the GOP) gets the votes anyway; as the old saying goes, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/22 "2005-09-16T17:04:18Z")

</div>

> [@fushj00mang](#):
>
> 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.

There’s a big difference between arguing a case, and deciding a case. A lawyer arguing a case is supposed to take sides. Their job is to win for their client, through whatever tricks of the trade they can find.

The judge is supposed to be fair and impartial. They should leave all preconceptions behind at the door.

To me, it doesn’t follow that knowing how to argue a case gives much insight into how to judge a case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/23 "2005-09-16T17:10:56Z")

</div>

> [@Jonathan Chance](#):
>
> 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.

Yep. Bush would be nuts to send up another nominee before the vote count is in on Roberts. This is a test for the Dems. If they vote against him by a large margin, he’s going to say: “Nothing will satisify these guys, so I might as well go from broke next time. Let’s get Scalia’s twin ready for the confimation process.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/24 "2005-09-16T18:27:29Z")

</div>

> [@John Mace](#):
>
> Yep. Bush would be nuts to send up another nominee before the vote count is in on Roberts. This is a test for the Dems. If they vote against him by a large margin, he’s going to say: “Nothing will satisify these guys, so I might as well go from broke next time. Let’s get Scalia’s twin ready for the confimation process.”

If I believed Bush gave a flip what satisfied the Dems I’d buy that notion. He’ll nominate who he pleases, for whatever reasons he pleases, and the Dems can go hang. It’s the people in his own party he’s worried about. Not all of them are anti-abortion zealots and probably worried about having to face an electorate turned Dem if Roe v. Wade gets overturned.

That said, I’m pretty sure Roberts will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. HIs wife is on the board of Operation Rescue and he’s too young to have given up on getting laid just yet. He’ll work HAAAARD for it. Yes, he will.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/25 "2005-09-16T20:11:04Z")

</div>

> [@Evil Captor](#):
>
> That said, I’m pretty sure Roberts will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. HIs wife is on the board of Operation Rescue and he’s too young to have given up on getting laid just yet. He’ll work HAAAARD for it. Yes, he will.

I doubt it. As I said in a previous thread, he’ll uphold _Roe_, but he will be willing to let stand any restrictions the legislature wants to put on abortion-- parental notification for minors, no “partial birth” abortions, no late term abortions, etc. But he will allow elective abortions in the first trimester to stand on the basis of _stare decisis_.

I’m willing to make a small wager (\< $100) on that if anyone wants. Assuming he gets the opportunity to overturn \*Roe \*and outlaw \*\*all \*\*elective abortions, he will not do so.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/26 "2005-09-16T20:16:14Z")

</div>

> [@Evil Captor](#):
>
> That said, I’m pretty sure Roberts will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. HIs wife is on the board of Operation Rescue and he’s too young to have given up on getting laid just yet. He’ll work HAAAARD for it. Yes, he will.

Roberts’ wife also belongs to a group which opposes the death penalty, and in questioning, he appeared to be ambivalent about it. Shall we assume he will work HAAAARD to abolish it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/27 "2005-09-16T20:48:48Z")

</div>

> [@John Mace](#):
>
> I’m willing to make a small wager (\< $100) on that if anyone wants. Assuming he gets the opportunity to overturn \*Roe \*and outlaw \*\*all \*\*elective abortions, he will not do so.

Phrased that way, you can’t lose that bet. Roberts could get the chance to overturn _Roe_, but I don’t see how he’d get a case that would provide an opportunity to outlaw elective abortion.

I freely admit that Roberts could be hiding his real feelings and that every word out of his mouth before the Senate could be a lie - only because at this stage there’s no way for me to know - but if he’s spoken honestly, he seems like a very good judge. He might actually be concerned with the law instead of advocating a particular viewpoint. Gasp.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\
**Post date:** [September 16, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/28 "2005-09-16T21:21:44Z")

</div>

> [@Marley23](#):
>
> Phrased that way, you can’t lose that bet. Roberts could get the chance to overturn _Roe_, but I don’t see how he’d get a case that would provide an opportunity to outlaw elective abortion.

Yeah, I worded that wrongly. I should have said overturn \*Roe \*and let the states decide whether or not all elective abortions should be made illegal.

> [@](#):
>
> I freely admit that Roberts could be hiding his real feelings and that every word out of his mouth before the Senate could be a lie - only because at this stage there’s no way for me to know - but if he’s spoken honestly, he seems like a very good judge. He might actually be concerned with the law instead of advocating a particular viewpoint. Gasp.

I have no doubt that uphold a law that was constutionally valid even if he himself opposed that law passionately.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\
**Post date:** [September 17, 2005, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/29 "2005-09-17T07:21:06Z")

</div>

> [@Tastes of Chocolate](#):
>
> There’s a big difference between arguing a case, and deciding a case. A lawyer arguing a case is supposed to take sides. Their job is to win for their client, through whatever tricks of the trade they can find.
> 
> The judge is supposed to be fair and impartial. They should leave all preconceptions behind at the door.
> 
> To me, it doesn’t follow that knowing how to argue a case gives much insight into how to judge a case.

When he was first nominated, someone posted something that surprised me. Many of the Supreme Court Justices in the history of the court had _NO EXPERIENCE_ as judges.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\
**Post date:** [September 17, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737/30 "2005-09-17T07:24:16Z")

</div>

Posted by John Corrado

> [@](#):
>
> 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.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roberts-had-damn-well-better-get-confirmed/321737.md?page=1)