Who will Bush nominate to succeed Justice O'Connor?

[John_Mace]

@Gorsnak

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.

Bingo. I was watching a recap on CNN just now, and the exact same thought occured to me. His pro-RvW statement was his position as a lower court judge, but may not be his position once he’s on the SCOTUS. Still, I don’t think someone like Bush would want to see RvW overturned due to the enormous political ramifications to the Pubs. Besides, the court is still 5-4 in favor of Roe, even if Roberts were to take the anti- position. All the rhetoric from NARAL notwithstanding, O’Conner was not “the swing vote” upholding that case.

[elucidator]

…My only complaint about the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court is that I would have preferred it to be for the position of Chief Justice…

RedState

The Corner at National Review Online: approving, but not ecstatic, save for one mention of someone “masturbating like a motherfuck” (OK, I made that up…)

…Longstanding Bushbots are, of course, welcome to chime in with a little good-natured rubbing-of-noses. But let’s keep it friendly, everybody. This is a great, great day…

Freepers (They call each other “Bushbots”? Who knew?)

[dougie_monty]

@John Mace

Bingo. I was watching a recap on CNN just now, and the exact same thought occured to me. His pro-RvW statement was his position as a lower court judge, but may not be his position once he’s on the SCOTUS. Still, I don’t think someone like Bush would want to see RvW overturned due to the enormous political ramifications to the Pubs. Besides, the court is still 5-4 in favor of Roe, even if Roberts were to take the anti- position. All the rhetoric from NARAL notwithstanding, O’Connor was not “the swing vote” upholding that case.

[slightly edited]
I’ll say she wasn’t: Roe v.Wade was decided in 1973, eight years before O’Connor was appointed to the Court.

[Evil_Captor]

I’m ready to make a prediction now … I say it’s gonna be John G. Roberts.

Do I have super precognition, or what?

[Gadarene]

I’ll say she wasn’t: Roe v.Wade was decided in 1973, eight years before O’Connor was appointed to the Court.

John was actually referring to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

[John_Stewart_Pie]

Remeber the last Supreme Court nominee to state she felt Roe was decided incorrectly was RGB. People on both sides disagree with the legal reasoning of that decision.

[squeegee]

“RGB”? Ruth Gader Binsberg?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Gorsnak

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.

A client who chose him for the job, presumably expecting his full energy to be devoted to it, presumably requiring he agree with the client’s position in the first place.

[Captain_Amazing]

@elucidator

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?

He sued Microsoft.

[Nars_Glinley]

@ElvisL1ves

A client who chose him for the job, presumably expecting his full energy to be devoted to it, presumably requiring he agree with the client’s position in the first place.

I would think that they would choose him because of his skills, not his opinions.

[Mr.Moto]

@elucidator

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?

The Knights of Columbus put out this press release today:

Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson called Judge John Roberts “a first-rate choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.” President Bush announced that he would nominate Roberts in a nationally-televised address July 20.

“Judge Roberts is exactly the kind of nominee that members of both parties have described as the kind of choice the President should make,” Anderson said.

…“During his years in private practice,” Anderson recalled, "he argued a case pro bono – free of charge – on behalf of some of the District’s neediest welfare recipients, who were about to lose their benefits under the D.C. Public Assistance Act.

He is someone who knows and appreciates the plight of the poor, especially those who have the most difficult time getting fair and even-handed treatment in our legal system."

[ElvisL1ves]

@KRM

I would think that they would choose him because of his skills, not his opinions.

Aren’t there enough skilled lawyers in Washington that they could get one with both?

[elucidator]

Moto: Good! Is that it?

[Mr.Moto]

I’ll post more if I find it. But I thought you’d want to know about this.

[wonky]

He argued “a case”?

Do most lawyers do much pro bono work? Is one case unusual?

[elucidator]

@Mr. Moto

I’ll post more if I find it. But I thought you’d want to know about this.

Indeed. I find it reassuring. I crave such assurance, I would like nothing better than to believe that a good and generous man is being advanced to power. And so like Oliver Twist I hold forth my bowl imploringly “Please, sir, can I have some more?”

[Nars_Glinley]

@ElvisL1ves

Aren’t there enough skilled lawyers in Washington that they could get one with both?

When picking a lawyer to argue a major case (or any case for that matter), I’d look at his record first and foremost. I’m hiring a gun, not a political advisor. Does he agree with me? That’s way down on the list.

[BobLibDem]

@KRM

I would think that they would choose him because of his skills, not his opinions.

That’s a knee-slapper!

[Mr.Moto]

@jsgoddess

He argued “a case”?

Do most lawyers do much pro bono work? Is one case unusual?

The pro-bono work would have been arranged through his firm when he was in private practice.

Roberts worked for Hogan and Hartson, where he made senior partner. This firm seems to have a good reputation for its pro-bono work.

Cite.

I know a couple of H&H attorneys. They have noted in the past that the pro bono commitment by the firm is serious, and goes beyond what many other firms commit to.

[Frank]

For what it’s worth, Tom Strickland, the Democrat candidate for the Colorado U.S. Senate seat in 1996 and 2002, was recruited to Hogan & Hartson by Roberts, and has nothing but good things to say about him as a person.