# What's Wrong/Right With Judge Roberts? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322 "2005-07-20T17:47:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/41 "2005-07-20T21:34:02Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m saying that if I can’t tell what you think from the work you do, from the briefs you draft, over the next twenty years, then there certainly isn’t enough ‘there’ there for you to be deserving of a position requiring demonstrated ability to make judgments. Wow. **My Judge:** Gad, write an opinion taking us through the _Chevron_ analysis and showing why deference to the agency’s decision is compelled in this case. **Me in my head:** When I read the briefs, it sure seemed like _Skidmore_ deference should apply instead of _Chevron_ deference. **Me out loud:** Yes sir. Deputy Solicitor Generals – like federal law clerks – are not supposed to act upon their own conclusions, unless those conclusions have been thoroughly vetted up the ladder. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/42 "2005-07-20T21:38:14Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > I agree completely that he is a staunch conservative. Pending further information, I don’t see that he is a rabid conservative. I’m convinced we will get no one more acceptable from the White House than Roberts is. The problem is, there’s plenty of room between ‘staunch’ and ‘rabid.’ I don’t think Roberts is rabid at all, but he’s well beyond ‘staunch’ conservatives like, say, J. Harvie Wilkinson III. I’d consider him a very well-behaved, polite Kool-Aid drinker who will give both the religious right and the corporatists practically everything they want. You are probably right that we may not get anyone better. But in a way, the White House has found the ‘sweet spot’: they’ve picked a guy who is as presentable as can be, but will vote their way on practically everything of significance. (We need a Predictions Registry, because I’d love to put this one in there.) Yeah, I think we’ll probably have to confirm him, simply because he doesn’t visibly foam at the mouth. That seems to be the standard, these days. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/43 "2005-07-20T21:42:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think Roberts is rabid at all, but he’s well beyond ‘staunch’ conservatives like, say, J. Harvie Wilkinson III. I’d consider him a very well-behaved, polite Kool-Aid drinker who will give both the religious right and the corporatists practically everything they want. Where’s your evidence that Wilkinson is any better than Roberts? Does the fact that O’Connor reportedly thought that Roberts was a “fabulous” choice mean anything to you one way or the other? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/44 "2005-07-20T21:46:54Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > I’m curious why people seem so opposed just because he’s a conservative Republican. If you weren’t expecting Bush to nominate a conservative Republican… No, I was expecting Bush to nominate a conservative Republican. But that’s a pretty wide range these days. Take the U.S. Senate: Chuck Hagel is a conservative Republican. So is Rick Santorum. See what I mean? It would have been nice of Bush to nominate the judicial equivalent of Chuck Hagel, but I kinda knew that wasn’t gonna happen. But Bush apparently came pretty close to picking Clement in this hurry-up, take-the-heat-off-Rove pick. Clement was gonna give the corporatists everything they want, but only give the fundies a few scraps. I would have accepted that _that_ was the best we could do. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/45 "2005-07-20T21:51:53Z")
A masterpiece of political marketing, we are blind men being sold an elephant. Some of us think we’re buying a snake. They wink and gesture at the extreme anti-Roes, yes, for sure, he’s one of us, but we can’t just come right out and say it because then the liberals might thwart God’s Will. But trust us, the Leader knows what he’s doing, he wouldn’t have been nominated otherwise. Others are being sold a tree. Sure, he said those things, but that’s just his job, there’s no reason to believe he’s an extremist in real life. No, really, he’s just a moderately conservative centrist, Sandra O’Connor with a dick, calm down, move along, nothing to see here, you looky-loos. Probably only the devotees of the Mammonite Church actually know what they’re getting, who worship at the Citicorp Cathedral, who sing the hymns to unfettered and vigorous Entrepreneurship and the Holy Market. But there was never, ever any doubt on that score. They know him, they are sublimely confident, they have the reciept. He is theirs. The maketing strategy depends on maintaining the discreet ambivalence. The Dems can ask all they want, they can’t make him rat himself out. He will offer them nothing to stand on, nothing to point at. I concur with the learned counsel: we can’t win this one, you can’t play volleyball in quicksand, no points can be scored, so if the Forces of Darkness have a one point lead when the game starts, the game will end 1-0. Put up a good show of it, give him a hearty and careful grilling (while praying he steps on his dick…) and then confirm, reluctantly, in a spirit of accomodation and compromise. There are plenty of bozos on this bus, but no obstructionists. Save your ammo, then maybe you can save the whales. If I ever have any reason to believe that a Senator gives a shit what I think, that’s what I’ll tell him. Feh!..(shrug)…_mazel tov!_ (in the sense of “Much good may it do you I hope you should get boils”) ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/46 "2005-07-20T22:40:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > confirm, reluctantly, in a spirit of accomodation and compromise With a 65-35 vote or thereabouts, and no attempt at a filibuster. Prez says he’s got some capital. Make him spend a bit, but don’t be obnoxious. Then get right back to Rove. ---
**Author:** ![jebert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ec9cab/32.png) [@jebert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jebert)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/47 "2005-07-20T22:41:15Z")
Yeah, there will be months of committee meetings and hearings, covered in minute detail by all the media outlets and rehashed by every pundiit under the sun, but the final result will be … confirmation. How do I know? Just by the tone of the discussion so far on NPR. There has been very little said in opposition to this nominee so far. That might be because he is a relative newcomer to the bench, having spent much of his career as a lawyer working for clients. But that just means there is probably very little to dig up on him. And as previously pointed out by more erudite posters, the Democrats have little to gain by going after this one; they’ll need to conserve their ammo for the next one. So if NPR isn’t balking, I say it’s a done deal. So let me be the first to congratulate John Roberts on his successful confirmation to SCOTUS. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2005, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/48 "2005-07-20T22:59:21Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > With a 65-35 vote or thereabouts, and no attempt at a filibuster. > > Prez says he’s got some capital. Make him spend a bit, but don’t be obnoxious. Then get right back to Rove. In an interview today, Rove said: “I don’t know about this Roberts guy. He might be too conservative. I hope the Senate Democrats take their time and give this matter the serious attention it deserves. A long, thoughtful, and thorough confirmation process will be good for the country. The longer the better.” 😃😃😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/49 "2005-07-20T23:13:52Z")
On that one I think the FoD (Forces of Darkness) messed up. The urgency to get Rove off the TV screen was so blatant and the timing just really, really bad. We’d pretty much reached the end of the tether on dramatic revelations. Rove lied, everybody pretty much knows it, and GeeDub “clarified his position” by roughly 180 degrees, so on and so forth. Damage has been done. Barring another dramatic revelation, it would have sputtered away on its own, and would have stayed that way until Fitzjavert reveals his indictments. And then the cats gonna be amongst the pigeons no matter what. Hoooo, doggies! A prospect I anticipate with an emotion uncomfortably similar to lust. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/50 "2005-07-20T23:17:44Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > The only thing I know of is the _amicus_ for **Lee v Weisman** he helped author for Bush 41, arguing religious ceremonies in public high school graduations were constitutional. The SCOTUS voted against 5-4 in '92. That, again, can be dismissed by the employee argument cited above, if one is feeling optimistic. Even still, this is a pretty minor issue in the spectrum of potential violations of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, and doesn’t provide much insight, even if he did completely support the position represented in the _amicus_. Thanks for this. It’s not a reassuring indicator but it’s not enough to really draw a conclusion either. I think I might actually have to watch the hearings. This is a strange feeling for me. I’m truly undecided and want to get a little more information before I make up my mind. I think this is a case where the opposition’s grilling might prove to be useful instead of strictly political. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/51 "2005-07-20T23:26:42Z")
PS to **John** : The aforementioned PBS law reporting hottie is named Ann Crawford Greenburg. Sharp as a razor, cute as a bug’s ear. She also predicted that GW would nominate a white ruling class conservative, hispanics, women and centrists need not apply…when everybody else was _waaaay_ off! Kicking rack, too. ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/52 "2005-07-20T23:47:31Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think this is a case where the opposition’s grilling might prove to be useful instead of strictly political. I’m with you. I’ve been fighting against my own instincts since hearing about this, and looking for some decent analysis of “judicial temperament”. Unfortunately, what I’ve read so far is less than encouraging. For me, Roe v. Wade is about privacy, and Roberts seems troubling in that regard, based on so much more than his comments on Roe. But I will wait a bit longer before I really get into it - with one caveat - I just wonder if any of the more flippant remarks so far have come from women of child-bearing age. Anyone??? I think not. Sorry, but this part of it really burns me, more than anything I’ve read so far. And I say this as a politically “pro-choice”, personally “pro-life” woman who is 25 weeks along with her first child. But really, how dare you? How dare you make light of something this important? On a lighter note (and to prove my sense of humor is still somewhat intact) - is anyone else reminded of Dan Quayle when looking at his photo? That was my first response, “It’s Dan Quayle - with a brain!” But why do we automatically assume he’s got a good brain? Because of his education cred? I believe that criteria has been debunked already. I’d like to hear a qualified analysis of his legal arguments to date. Is he really as “bright” as his media pr keeps trumpeting? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/53 "2005-07-21T00:13:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > On that one I think the FoD (Forces of Darkness) messed up. The urgency to get Rove off the TV screen was so blatant and the timing just really, really bad. Did the Forces of Darkness also give O’Connor’s husband althemizers? Did the Forces of Darkness give him this degenerative disease years ago to save Rove’s skin? Seriously, I am all for conspiracy but it seems quite a stretch that the Forces of Darkness can control disease, can control the judges sentancing reporters to jail and control O’Connors decision to retire from the SCOTUS. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/54 "2005-07-21T00:23:12Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > PS to **John** : The aforementioned PBS law reporting hottie is named Ann Crawford Greenburg. Sharp as a razor, cute as a bug’s ear. She also predicted that GW would nominate a white ruling class conservative, hispanics, women and centrists need not apply…when everybody else was _waaaay_ off! > > Kicking rack, too. I saw her today, but she was wearing a loose fitting suit. No view of said rack. I didn’t mean to knock 'ol Nina earlier. I’m sure she was quite fetching back in the day, and the sands of time have not been unkind to her. Great voice, too. ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/55 "2005-07-21T00:25:43Z")
By the way, do you guys know that Roberts was being groomed and set up by “Progress For America”? Apparently, they were anticipating his nomination - they are already running ads on cable tv promoting his nomination, and have had a website up and running to promote him for the past month. Okay, it might not mean anything - maybe he will surprise them, maybe he will surprise his own wife for that matter - but still, not an encouraging sign for someone concerned with his views on Roe, and other issues. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/56 "2005-07-21T00:30:16Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Did the Forces of Darkness also give O’Connor’s husband althemizers? Did the Forces of Darkness give him this degenerative disease years ago to save Rove’s skin? Seriously, I am all for conspiracy but it seems quite a stretch that the Forces of Darkness can control disease, can control the judges sentancing reporters to jail and control O’Connors decision to retire from the SCOTUS. I think what **luci** ’s getting at is that there was no great urgency to making this announcement. It had originally been scheduled to happen at the end of the month. Suddenly, the Rove story catches fire and we absolutely have to have the announcement RIGHT NOW? This administration has timed announcements and press conferences to their advantage before…this is just another example. Like I said, the proper tack to take on this, given that we are simply not going to get anyone more moderate than Roberts from this president, no matter how much we whine or scream or gnash our teeth and wish for mind-control, is to generate a whole hell of a lot more light than heat with the confirmation process. We only have so much heat per news cycle (hpnc) and we really, really want to spend that on the Rove/CIA story. Really, really. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/57 "2005-07-21T00:37:11Z")
And to the folks who are still on the Roe v Wade angle, do you not get it yet? It’s a done deal. We’re simply _not going to get anyone who isn’t at least moderately hostile to RvW_ from this White House. We could block Roberts. But the next nominee will ALSO be hostile to RvW. We could block him, too. But the next nominee will also be hostile to RvW. There is no winning in this situation. The die was cast when O’Connor announced. We can’t keep Bush from naming SOMEONE to the Court and we don’t have the numbers, the will, or the mandate to keep rejecting nominees until Bush’s term is up. Even as a staunch pro-choicer who thinks that women should be able to stroll into an abortion clinic on their lunch hour off the street and get one with federal funding at need, I’m telling you: Roe v Wade is OFF THE TABLE as far as filling this seat goes. It’s a non-issue exactly because there’s absolutely no way the pro-choicers are getting our way on it. It’s a game of attrition…and Bush has lots more cannon fodder to throw at Congress than the Congressional Dems have patience, votes, political capital or constituent interest to throw back. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/58 "2005-07-21T00:37:41Z")
> [@boret](#): > > By the way, do you guys know that Roberts was being groomed and set up by “Progress For America”? Apparently, they were anticipating his nomination - they are already running ads on cable tv promoting his nomination, and have had a website up and running to promote him for the past month. Why do you hate “Progress”? 🙂 I just can’t see how this guy won’t get confirmed by the Senate. Unless he dropped acid while he was captain of his high school football team, the guy’s gonna be out next SC justice… ---
**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:** [July 21, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/59 "2005-07-21T00:39:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > the guy’s gonna be out next SC justice… our next SC justice… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/60 "2005-07-21T00:50:26Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I think what **luci** ’s getting at is that there was no great urgency to making this announcement. It had originally been scheduled to happen at the end of the month. Suddenly, the Rove story catches fire and we absolutely have to have the announcement RIGHT NOW? This administration has timed announcements and press conferences to their advantage before…this is just another example… Mmmmm, yes. > [@](#): > > …Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove. > > “It helps take Rove off the front pages for a week,” one Republican strategist said… _Reuters_ Nobody said “Cite?”. Thought sure somebody said “Cite?” Well, anyway, there’s the cite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322.md?page=4)