# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/121 "2005-07-23T06:05:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Out in Blogovania, there is something going around about whether or not Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society. Apparently, he was identified as such but the word is that he denies it? > > Thoughts? Scurrillous gossip? Bald faced and actionable libels? He’s a faith-based nominee. 😃 Seriously, his no-holds-barred acceptance by radical right groups is the most troubling thing I can find out there, but you know what - I bet they don’t know anything for sure about him either. Otherwise, why the advance hard sell? Maybe good old billmon is right, and the best thing the so-called lefties can do is embrace and accept him without reservations. Play with their heads. Smoke them out. Be like Michael and _not_ Fredo for a change. Make them say, “Hey, wait a minute. If the libruls like him then he can’t be “our guy” like they promised. Something’s wrong here. Maybe they sold us out like all the other times…” Fingers (and toes!) crossed this guy surprises _everyone_. Here’s hoping he tastes as good as his pr sounds and looks. I feel better now. 😉 ---
**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 23, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/122 "2005-07-23T06:59:49Z")
> [@boret](#): > > I don’t blame you one bit for thinking that way, because it is my own thinking. I can’t easily access pdf files because of my shit-ass computer (your own cite crashed me twice). As far as I can determine, here is a cite for the full text of Roberts’ opinion: > > [http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf](http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf) > > If you find anything in there that debunks Prof Rubin, or sheds further light on the opinion, then I would really appreciate your input. I can’t determine this for myself under the circumstances, and that is one of the reasons I chose this messageboard to ask questions about this - I expect that both sides will weigh in on any particular point in question (For the record, I do lean left in many ways, but I try not to be a “knee-jerk” lefty, and would like to hear every possibility before forming an opinion).Hey, I don’t know! The argument in that piece is an attempt to determine what level of [scrutiny](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) (sctirct, intermediate or rational basis) is appropriate in this case. Since that method of judicial review is modern in aspect (ie, well after “1791”), I find the Rubin article to be, at best, misleading if it is in fact based on the writings you cited above. At worst, it’s an out and out lie. > [@](#): > > I don’t know if Scalia’s opinions are “invalid”, but I do know he is a hot spot name for the left, and furthermore, I actually met the man. My personal opinion leaves me with a bad taste for him - Brilliant almost certainly, but disdainful and lacking in humanity when it comes to interacting with “regular” people. I understand this is only an anecdote, and perhaps there are many others who will step forward to say, “Oh no, he is a heck of a guy, and you must have caught him at a bad time!”, but that is the basis of what I know about him - my own experience. > > Sort of like the prototype of what right-winger’s like to portray as the “typical” “disdainful” liberal, when it comes to dealing with “regular” people. _That_ is Scalia. > > Perhaps he doesn’t suffer “fools” easily, but for some reason I expect more from a justice on the SCOTUS. Politicians in general I don’t expect much from, but is it really so unreasonable to expect a SCOTUS justice to be both brilliant _and_ a decent human being? Are there no potential candidates that fit the bill in both categories? I don’t know… Scalia isn’t noted for his personableness, that’s for sure. He’s an intellectual and does seem to delight in pointing out inferior intellects. That, however, doesn’t make his judicial rulings suspect. Keep in mind that it’s the “strict constructionists” on the court (to use Bush’s terminology) like Thomas who ruled on the “liberal” side of three recent court cases: medicinal marijuana, flag buring, and eminent domain. I was disappointed that Scalia ruled with the majority on the first case, but he did take the “liberal” view on the other two. > [@](#): > > For the record, I don’t think Roberts is necessarily the same sort of grade A prick Scalia proved himself to be to me. The point is - I don’t know enough about him. So far, I’d say, no, he’s not a prick - but really - how should I know that? > > I’d like some honest info, one way or another. None of this “their guy” or “our guy” stuff, because I don’t _have_ “a guy”. Call me careless, but I really didn’t plan on having to choose on that basis. I think that’s a key reason Bush appointed him. He’s probably not too differnt from Scalia in philosophy, but he’s just a much more likebale guy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/123 "2005-07-23T14:43:46Z")
David Letterman’s Top Ten List of Men Less Likeable Than Scalia! 1. Vlad the Impaler 2. Torequemada 3. Savanorola ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/124 "2005-07-23T14:47:26Z")
David Letterman’s Top Ten List of Men Less Likeable Than Scalia! 1. Vlad the Impaler 2. Torequemada 3. Savanorola 4. Richard Nixon 5. Ed Gein 6. Lee Atwater 7. Richard Nixon 8. uh…ummmm…Hannibal Lecter! 9. OK, OK, don’t rush me, I’m thinking here, I’m thinking… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/125 "2005-07-25T05:49:09Z")
Personally, I think it would be all that bad to let them pack the court and challenge RvW. My reasoning is thus: 1. Marginalize the far right. Most sane people are pro-choice or at the very least don’t care and think the ruling should stand. It seems to me that Republicans put up Catholics (I’m a Catholic myself which may help to explain the dichotomy of thought amongst us) because they are gunning to overturn RvW. Let them and let us reap the political windfall that results. Then you can pack the court with our guys and send it back the other way. 2. It would be a waste of time to oppose this guy. Where did Rove go? He’s the one we need to focus on. This is all diversion in the meantime. 3. And most importantly, if they challenge RvW, it should motivate our side more than anything else Bush has done in the past. We need something that is going to make our people hit the mattresses. Your average redneck Bush voter isn’t some super religious person who is concerned about poor people’s babies. These people are so sucked up with fear and hate that I’m sure they don’t really care if some welfare mother, or liberal “fem-nazi,” gets an abortion. This issue really only motivates the religious right wing of the party, who like the extreme left wing of our party, are not the majority of republicans. So, this issue will not help them whatsoever but has the potential to inject into our party the motivation we need. To my mind this will be just one more nail in the republican’s coffin for the next elections. The draw back is that this Roberts dude might not be a real threat to RvW but is something that is more nearer and dearer to Bush’s heart than the religious right: A friend of the corporation and the foe of the working man and the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/126 "2005-07-25T07:24:16Z")
Forget RvW…has anyone mentioned [this](http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/24/Columns/Roberts__rules_put_US.shtml) ? And ya know…it isn’t jsut hysterical lefty nutjobs that keep seeing the chilling resemblences to the 3rd Reich… > [@](#): > > * * * > > Keeping the Conventions broadly applicable to our enemies is so important to the welfare of our own troops that a group of highly distinguished retired military generals and admirals filed an amicus brief on Hamdan’s behalf. In the brief, the retired officers noted that the administration’s “crimped reading” of the Conventions "bears a disturbing resemblance to the interpretation of predecessor conventions adopted by Nazi Germany. Exploiting "technicalities’ and “ambiguities’ in the 1929 Conventions, the Nazis refused to afford POW status to soldiers of occupied countries, arguing that those prisoners were no longer soldiers of any existing state.” > > The brief warned that if the administration is allowed to ignore the Conventions, “tyrants will hide their oppression under U.S. precedent and our servicemen and women will pay with their lives.” > > Sadly, Roberts didn’t seem to care. The green light he and his judicial colleagues gave to the tribunals means they are revving up again. We will undoubtedly come to regret this; and maybe, someday, \* Justice \* Roberts will, too. > \*\* Who will save us? ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/127 "2005-07-25T22:00:15Z")
> [@The Highwayman](#): > > Personally, I think it would be all that bad to let them pack the court and challenge RvW. My reasoning is thus: > > 1. Marginalize the far right. Most sane people are pro-choice or at the very least don’t care and think the ruling should stand. It seems to me that Republicans put up Catholics (I’m a Catholic myself which may help to explain the dichotomy of thought amongst us) because they are gunning to overturn RvW. Let them and let us reap the political windfall that results. Then you can pack the court with our guys and send it back the other way. > > 2. It would be a waste of time to oppose this guy. Where did Rove go? He’s the one we need to focus on. This is all diversion in the meantime. > > 3. And most importantly, if they challenge RvW, it should motivate our side more than anything else Bush has done in the past. We need something that is going to make our people hit the mattresses. Your average redneck Bush voter isn’t some super religious person who is concerned about poor people’s babies. These people are so sucked up with fear and hate that I’m sure they don’t really care if some welfare mother, or liberal “fem-nazi,” gets an abortion. This issue really only motivates the religious right wing of the party, who like the extreme left wing of our party, are not the majority of republicans. So, this issue will not help them whatsoever but has the potential to inject into our party the motivation we need. To my mind this will be just one more nail in the republican’s coffin for the next elections. > > The draw back is that this Roberts dude might not be a real threat to RvW but is something that is more nearer and dearer to Bush’s heart than the religious right: A friend of the corporation and the foe of the working man and the environment. My initial reaction was to worry about Roe, but now that my knee has jerked and gone back again, I’m more worried about what you characterize as a “draw back”. In this way Roberts is the perfect stealth candidate - just enough pro-life cred to assuage the religious right _and_ divert the pro-choice opposition groups - while the real reason he is so desirable slips under the radar. **Stoid** ’s _Hamdan_ cite is yet another troubling aspect. I do agree that this is also a diversion from Rove, but AFAIK neither issue will come to a head until after the summer is over. Can’t we juggle both until then? ---
**Author:** ![boret](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@boret](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boret)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322/128 "2005-07-25T22:28:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The argument in that piece is an attempt to determine what level of [scrutiny](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) (sctirct, intermediate or rational basis) is appropriate in this case. Since that method of judicial review is modern in aspect (ie, well after “1791”), I find the Rubin article to be, at best, misleading if it is in fact based on the writings you cited above. At worst, it’s an out and out lie. I won’t be able to access pdf files until I get back home end of this week (I’m using an old laptop while visiting family). The Salon article doesn’t offer a particular pdf cite for the quotes - I just found the one I gave you while searching for possible html versions. So I can’t really respond to your comments other than to wonder what you mean about misleading or lies. It seemed to me that Rubin was trying to point out how Roberts is an “originalist”, much like Scalia. You go on to suppose that yourself so your comment is confusing without access to a definitive cite of what Roberts wrote about that case. > [@](#): > > Scalia isn’t noted for his personableness, that’s for sure. He’s an intellectual and does seem to delight in pointing out inferior intellects. That, however, doesn’t make his judicial rulings suspect. Keep in mind that it’s the “strict constructionists” on the court (to use Bush’s terminology) like Thomas who ruled on the “liberal” side of three recent court cases: medicinal marijuana, flag buring, and eminent domain. I was disappointed that Scalia ruled with the majority on the first case, but he did take the “liberal” view on the other two. IMO, it’s not Scalia being a “strict constructionist” (or “originalist”) that makes him “suspect” (I’ll accept that word over the previous “invalid” 🙂 ). Without knowing much, it seems to me that there are drawbacks to both strict construction and “living document” interpretations. What I “suspect” about Scalia is that he is more strict idealogue than strict constructionist. But as I say, I’m no lawyer, and I could be wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-right-with-judge-roberts/313322.md?page=6)