How long till breakfast?
Theocracy here we come.
Can anyone offer any insight on how conservative Roberts is relative to the other people that were believed to be on Bush’s short list? In other words, as a liberal should I be saying “It could be worse”, or what?
At first blush, I don’t see any smoking guns, his brief on Roe not withstanding – I think I agree with Moto (holy crap!) that he was filing what his employer told him to. He’s conservative (like we expected anything else), but he’s not apparently a cro-magnon reactionary. I don’t see anything that puts him into the “constitution in exile” crowd, but admit I don’t know enough at this point. I’ll reserve final judgement until folks with more experience look into his record.
Be aware it is a PDF.
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
I can see the marketing strategy here. I would have thought that his relative inexperience as a judge would have been something of a downside, but, as has been noted, he hasn’t left a “paper trail”. So the leftward amongst us have nothing solid, even though every description of him is “strongly conservative”, “strict constructionist”, so on and so forth. We already knew we were going to get some sort of conservative, the only question was to what extremity. A question that isn’t going to be answered. We don’t have a solid basis for dismay.
On the other hand, as noted above, the Trog Right is gleeful. One has to wonder: if his judicial philosophy is so unclear, why are they dancing in the streets? Gonzales was “solidly conservative”, but him they didn’t like. This guy they love. What signal have they been sent?
If it were somebody I didn’t much like and Tony Perkins didn’t much like, I wouldn’t feel so threatened. What they call a “compromise”, which I understand is highly regarded in some of your more civilized nations.
'Nother odd thing: I was thinking I’d take a shower in a minute, but suddenly the idea creeps me out…
I got the impression that they didn’t like Gonzales because of a few comments that suggested maybe he was OK with abortion. So perhaps they like Roberts because of a few comments that suggest he’s not so OK with abortion. In both cases, they may be reading too much into it.
Oh, come on…you know Norman wouldn’t hurt a fly.
Well, as was written long ago, in the deep mists of time, our nominee said:
This seems consistent with what Gonzales said about abortion:
It’s said recently that conservatives hate Gonzales, I’m now told they love Roberts. What am I missing?
Oh, great. He’s either not an anti-Roe extremist, in which case they are bamboozling them, or he is and they are pulling a fast one on us.
Swell.
I am also less than thrilled with what I read in Reeder’s referenced file, wherein he says “…“I don’t know how you can call [the Rehnquist] court conservative…” Where on the political spectrum do you stand that you don’t regard the Rehnquist Court as “conservative”? Just to the left of Torquemada?
Oops: obligatory cite that I’d meant to include in my previous post: Conservative Groups Rally Against Gonzales as Justice.
Are these same folks really ecstatic about Roberts? And if so, why?
Well, has Gonzales written anything as critical of Roe v. Wade as Roberts’ statement that it was “wrongly decided and should be overturned.” (I hope I got the quote right.) Because perhaps the right-wingers think that offsets those other comments.
I know plenty of conservatives who are furious over the Court’s recent “Eminent Domain” ruling…
Stephe96: you’re seem to me (and I hope I’m not presuming) on the right end of the spectrum, correct? Are you “ecstatic” about Roberts?
I’d guess you’re waiting to hear more, just like the left side. But do those Roberts v. Gonzales quotes make you feel warm & fuzzy or the opposite? Or “none of the above” ? Just curious.
It’s the return of GHWB’s Dan Quayle gambit. Let’s hope Roberts has a little more on the ball than Mr. ‘Potatoe’ head.
It seems to me that the two statements are subtly but importantly different. The Roberts quote is saying that Roberts recognizes that Roe v. Wade is the operative Supreme Court precedent, and he has no difficultly adhering to that precedent in his role as judge in a lower court. However, it does not say anything about whether he is of the opinion that SCOTUS erred in deciding Roe v. Wade, or whether SCOTUS should overturn Roe v. Wade should an abortion case come before it. The brief where he argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided is suggestive, but doesn’t mean much as has been correctly pointed out because he was arguing his client’s position at the time.
The Gonzales quote, on the other hand, is not merely accepting the existence of Roe v. Wade as the operative precedent, but implicitly accepts that it was correctly decided, given that he sees no way of changing it without amending the Constitution.
Based solely on these two quotes, we should have to predict that Gonzales would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, but make no prediction on how Roberts would vote for lack of evidence.
We are also supposed to be enjoined from drawing any untoward conclusions about all the “hard right” positions he has taken as a lawyer, under the presumption that his activities are politically neutral so long as they are strictly professional.
Well, OK, then…when in his strictly professional career has he advocated causes that would warm my tree-hugging heart? When has he gone forth to protect the poor from the propertied? When has he demanded accountability from corporate interests? When has he defended the accused from prosecutorial misconduct?
I’m given to understand that many lawyers do pro bono work, hoping, perhaps, not to be reincarnated as lampreys. What sort of causes has he defended on that basis? Perhaps his work defending strip-mining entrepreneurs from the cruel intrusions of environmentalists? Defending the habitat of the Wooly Rich Guy?
I agree, I’d guessed at the same distinction – Gonzales certainly seemed more deferrential toward precedent IMO.
But it does seem a subtle distinction, and I’m wondering how this could square with the Right being happy about Roberts’ nomination, if indeed they are. Are they, and if so, why?
Worst editing in a thread post goes to me.
“And if they are, why?”