# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/81 "2005-07-21T13:44:47Z")
> [@jebert](#): > > […] 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. > [@Bricker](#): > > Boy, that sure sounds like NPR isn’t so much neutral as it is a voice of the intelligent left. > [@treis](#): > > How in the world do you get that out of his statement? > [@Bricker](#): > > It suggests that the tone of the discussion on NPR is a reliable indicator of what the Democrats will do. […] > You really think that quote suggests NPR’s neutrality to the reader? Sure. I read it as implying that the Dems won’t put up much of a confirmation fight because there’s not that much **factual** basis for serious criticism of the candidate. In other words, NPR has not reported significant negative stuff about his record, which implies that there’s not much negative stuff there, which implies that the Dems have no solid basis for trying to block him. You seem to be reading it instead as implying that NPR is simply expressing Democratic **opinion** about the candidate. Like **treis** , I don’t see where you get that from. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/82 "2005-07-21T13:53:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > His statement: > > It suggests that the tone of the discussion on NPR is a reliable indicator of what the Democrats will do. It conflates intelligent strategy moves for the Democrats (sentence 6) with what NPR’s analysis indicates (sentences 2 and 7). > > You really think that quote suggests NPR’s _neutrality_ to the reader? You are really reaching. What the quote suggests is that the Democrats that have been interviewed on NPR concerning the issue have given him that impression. It says nothing of NPR’s analysis or philosophical stance. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/83 "2005-07-21T14:15:07Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Bush being Bush, he might throw a curveball and put up another moderate like Roberts - maybe even one slightly more moderate. That takes the Supreme Court issue away from the Democrats and a couple of popular picks are just what an incumbent party needs going into an election year. Also, there’s the underlying reality that reversal of _Roe v Wade_ is a case where _having_ is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as _wanting_ – under the status quo, the Republicans can throw red meat to the sexual conservatives without having to actually do anything to offend the more libertarian faction of the party. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/84 "2005-07-21T14:20:59Z")
I agree with Sam Stone in that Bush gave away a good chance for democrats to appear collaborative. Why he did so I don’t understand. This was Bush’s chance to make the democrats look bad and filibuster whiners and to divert attention from Rove. ``` In a way it shows that the democratic tactics of blocking the UN envoy and menacing any overly conservative SC nominee have worked. Bush chose what seems to me a "light" conservative. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/85 "2005-07-21T14:37:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > His statement: > > It suggests that the tone of the discussion on NPR is a reliable indicator of what the Democrats will do. It conflates intelligent strategy moves for the Democrats (sentence 6) with what NPR’s analysis indicates (sentences 2 and 7). > > You really think that quote suggests NPR’s _neutrality_ to the reader? The quote itself suggests one of either neutrality or a liberal bias. It does not specifically suggest a liberal bias. At least that is how I read it. It excludes a right wing bias because the lack of negative commentary on a right wing NPR would not indicate anything, in fact it would be expected. It does not exclude neutrality because if there were negative comments to be made about a nominee I would expect them to made on a neutral NPR, along with the positive comments. So, if one was talking about a neutral NPR one could still claim the lack of negative comments is an indication that there really isn’t much negative to dig up. Obviously, for similar reasons it doesn’t exclude a liberal bias. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/86 "2005-07-21T15:16:24Z")
Sam Stone is not a liberal and he spelled out what the democrats should do quite correctly… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/87 "2005-07-21T15:30:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You seem to be reading it instead as implying that NPR is simply expressing Democratic **opinion** about the candidate. Like **treis** , I don’t see where you get that from. OK - perhaps that’s simply my rose-colored glasses coming into play. If everyone else who reads that quote is seeing NPR neutrality, and no indication of bias, I withdraw my observation. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/88 "2005-07-21T15:35:42Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > I agree with Sam Stone in that Bush gave away a good chance for democrats to appear collaborative. Why he did so I don’t understand. Maybe he thinks Roberts is the best candidate, and that’s more important to him then intricate political machinations? ---
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/89 "2005-07-21T15:46:57Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Maybe he thinks Roberts is the best candidate, and that’s more important to him then intricate political machinations? Since when? ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/90 "2005-07-21T16:29:12Z")
I think friend **Bricker** merely wishes to remind us that NPR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) and Soros Media, Inc., whose iron grip on the airwaves dwarf fair and unbiased outlets such as Clear Channel and Fox News. We are invited to note that the power currently enjoyed by the Republican Party can thus only be a reflection of their support by the overwhelming majority of real Americans, and possibly the direct intervention of Providence. Yet, overwhelmed and outnumbered, they bravely soldier on… ---
**Author:** ![Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twin)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/91 "2005-07-21T16:50:13Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > So far, I haven’t seen any reason to believe the Dems would want to filibuster Roberts even if it wouldn’t be politically stupid. That’s exactly what the Bushies want. I say confirm this prick as quickly as possible, get the issue out of the news cycles and let’s return to kicking the shit out Rove. > > It’'s the next appointment that I’m worried about. I’m sure that Bush has a real prize bastard lined up for the next spot. What makes him a prick? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/92 "2005-07-21T17:08:26Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > So far, I haven’t seen any reason to believe the Dems would want to filibuster Roberts even if it wouldn’t be politically stupid. That’s exactly what the Bushies want. I say confirm this prick as quickly as possible, get the issue out of the news cycles and let’s return to kicking the shit out Rove. Hah. It’s working! Warren Bell spelled out the devious strategy on the [National Review site.](http://corner.nationalreview.com/) Looks like Karl Rove has you all outmaneuvered yet again. > [@](#): > > DOG THE WAG > Well, Karl Rove is a genius – nay, a super genius. Say it the way Wile E. Coyote did – Karl Rove, soooooper gene-ius. He’s got the entire world wired, doesn’t he? He convinced the SCOTUS and the POTUS to time the O’Connor retirement and the Roberts appointment to take the heat off his Plamegate troubles, right? > > Wrong. > > What Karl Rove (super genius) did required more planning, more cunning than that. Two years ago, he began pulling the strings, setting the Wilson/Plame/Novak plot in motion. Karl knew how it would shake out – and that when it did, he would be under intense media scrutiny. Karl knew that if the media were whipped into a frenzy over him, that maybe, just maybe President Bush could get a SCOTUS nominee past the Senate. > > That’s right. Karl Rove planned all along to take the heat off John Roberts, not for John Roberts to take the heat off him. > > Soooooper geeenius. > > Karl knows he didn’t quite do anything illegal, and that this will blow over soon enough, but he also knows the left wing blogs and columnists can’t resist a feeding frenzy over his drop of blood in the water. My proof: I listened to Al Franken on Air America Wednesday morning while stuck in traffic on the 101 freeway. (Take that, Navy SEALS. Not slapping mosquitoes is child’s play.) And did Al take apart John Roberts decision by decision? No. At least while I was “listening,” Al committed three segments to a live interview with… Joe Wilson. Roberts is taking more heat from Ann Coulter. > > Nice play, Karl. Nice play. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/93 "2005-07-21T18:07:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK - perhaps that’s simply my rose-colored glasses coming into play. If everyone else who reads that quote is seeing NPR neutrality, and no indication of bias, I withdraw my observation. No, I read **jebert** ’s post the same way **Bricker** , and I am a liberal. Of course I think he is wrong, but that is how I read the post. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/94 "2005-07-21T18:11:21Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Hah. It’s working! > > Warren Bell spelled out the devious strategy on the [National Review site.](http://corner.nationalreview.com/) Looks like Karl Rove has you all outmaneuvered yet again. > > 😉 I am so paranoid about our current administration that I had actually considered this idea myself. Of course it is batshit loony, but that just says where I am in my estimation of the administration. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/95 "2005-07-21T18:11:22Z")
I, too, agree with **Sam Stone** as to the Democrats’ best approach to the nomination. By all accounts, Roberts is very smart, congenial (more important than you might think in terms of the Supreme Court’s internal dynamics), with a great resume and four years of decisions on the DC Circuit over which to pore. He’s apparently not a doctrinaire conservative with an overarching concept of jurisprudence who’ll try to fit square pegs into round holes, ideologically speaking. His appointment to the DC Circuit four years ago was supported in writing by 146 members of the DC Bar Assn., including many prominent Democrats. Robert Bennett, Bill Clinton’s lawyer, says he’s a “superb” nominee to the Supreme Court. As others have noted, Roberts is about the best we Dems can expect out of this White House. So yes, look over Judge Roberts very closely, ask all the tough questions (most of which he’ll politely dodge, as is his prerogative), but in the end he’ll be confirmed. And, barring any scandal or skeletons in his closet, that’s as it should be. ---
**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, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/96 "2005-07-21T18:24:57Z")
The Rev. Swift has nothing to fear from Mr. Bell. Nonetheless, one must admire the delicate word choice he employs. “He didn’t quite do anything illegal”, indeed. Presumably he imagines happy minions carrying Darth Pillsbury Doughboy on their shoulders to glad cries of “Not Indictable!” as a grateful nation breathes a sigh of relief. And if Rove’s got “a drop of blood in the water”, the same phrase might be attached to the scene in _Jaws_, wherein Quint (Robert Shaw) and the Shark resolve their differences. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/97 "2005-07-21T21:35:59Z")
Don’t know if this counts as a “skeleton,” but in 2000 Roberts advised the GOP and Gov. Jeb Bush on how to to make sure the post-election fracas would make Dubya president: [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12183379.htm](http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12183379.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2005, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/98 "2005-07-21T23:38:44Z")
As someone who detests G.W. Bush and his secretive, mendacious administration, I am somewhat relieved he made such a reasonable choice for the SCOTUS. Roberts is not someone I’d agree with much, I suspect, but he clearly is someone I can respect. I join the other voices saying that Roberts should be grilled, yes, but dully confirmed. Whinging about him and trying to block his nomination would be very bad politically; he is too obviously well-qualified. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/99 "2005-07-22T13:21:31Z")
My mistake. Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit four years ago (and in 1992 by Bush the Wiser), but was confirmed and took the bench in 2003. So he’s been a Federal appellate judge for just over two years, not four. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/100 "2005-07-22T20:28:11Z")
> [@flight](#): > > I am so paranoid about our current administration that I had actually considered this idea myself. Of course it is batshit loony, but that just says where I am in my estimation of the administration. I think Rove makes for a nicer hunt trophy than Judge Roberts… even if SC judges are worth their weight in gold. Its not like Bush would nominate a centrist or liberal anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322.md?page=6)