Who will Bush nominate to succeed Justice O'Connor?

[elucidator]

Is there anybody on that short list more likely to enthuse the Trog Right and infuriate the reality-based community? (You may rephrase that any way you which, but the question stands…)

[Metacom]

Well, there’s not much in Wikipedia about him yet, but from the brief bio that is there it at least appears that he has some serious legal and judicial chops; that’s a positive sign at least…

[rfgdxm]

@Sam Stone

What’s wrong with him?

Obviously he wants to piss off the Pro-Choice crowd.

[andros]

Bush is taking the legacy route with a young nominee. Not surprising.

[BobLibDem]

@Sam Stone

I’m listening to early coverage right now, and this guy is getting rave reviews from both sides. I just heard Jim Warren, who’s no Republican, say he’s a ‘fantastic guy’, ‘born for the bench’, and a ‘brilliant choice’

The spin ain’t over till the fat Senator from Massachusetts sings.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Sure looks like it’s Roberts. I’d say Bush decided to pick a fight with this one. Many other things could be compromised on but I don’t see the left not pulling out all the stops for someone who appears set on bringing down Roe v Wade.

That doesn’t speak to his qualifications for the position…nor do I intend to. But I’d be surprised if this wasn’t one hell of a fight.

[andros]

Wiki entry, 20:05:

john G roberts is NOT A VERY GOOD GUY.

I dont know what it is about him

he aint no good
at NBA jam
nahhhh

[Stephe96]

Poor guy. He’ll be branded a Nazi by the libs by about, oh, let’s say 9:30 PM Eastern tonight. I’m just curious which century his appointment will set the nation back to…14th? 16th? I guess we’ll find out tonight!

[Sam_Stone]

@Jonathan Chance

Sure looks like it’s Roberts. I’d say Bush decided to pick a fight with this one. Many other things could be compromised on but I don’t see the left not pulling out all the stops for someone who appears set on bringing down Roe v Wade.

That doesn’t speak to his qualifications for the position…nor do I intend to. But I’d be surprised if this wasn’t one hell of a fight.

What evidence is there that he wants to ‘bring down’ Roe V. Wade?

[Evil_Captor]

@elucidator

We are advised that Mr. Gonzales is considered a “moderate conservative” in his native Texas. This places him just to the left of Cotton Mather. A great many of our political woes and calamities have their roots in Texas. I retain an unreasoning affection for my native state, and an entirely sensible affection for my adopted Minnesota. One or the other should secede. Loyalty to my country suggests Texas.

Well, now that you mention it, elucidator, I was thinking just the other day that neither Texas Democrat President LBJ, nor Texas Republican President Dubya ever seemed particularly concerned with the niceties of the Democratic system, especially those relative to vote counting and such. The whole notion that some importance should be attached to the idea that the person who recieves the most actual votes should win an election seems to garner very little credence with them.

And Tom Delay and Karl Rove, although not Presidents themselves (though a de facto case could surely be made for Rove) have attitudes about electoral politics that seem absolutely INIMICAL to democracy.

I believe you are right about Texas.

[tim314]

Slate has some info on John Roberts. (you have to scroll past Michael J. Luttig)

some excerpts:

For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

[asterion]

Well, that tears it. Screw Roe v. Wade, I demand we have a justice that kicks ass at NBA Jam!

[squeegee]

AP/NYT: Bush Picks John G. Roberts Jr. as Supreme Court Nominee

Wherein we have laid out the abortion issue:

Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women’s reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

“The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution,” the brief said.

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. … There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

If he truly believes it’s settled law, and this isn’t just posturing, that sounds pretty much like Gonzales’ position. The right and the left will hate him.

[andros]

Wiki entry, 20:12, 7.19.05:

hates niggers

[andros]

Sorry, I’m not contributing to the discussion much. It just tickles me. I could write an entire sociology dissertation around this not-yet-nomination and the Wiki community.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Sam Stone

What evidence is there that he wants to ‘bring down’ Roe V. Wade?

How 'bout this point:

“As a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan, for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.”

From Independent Judiciary

In short, he’s on record as believing that Roe v Wade was ‘wrongly decided’. Given that belief I don’t think it’s a terribly far leap to say that, given a chance, he would vote to overturn Roe.

[squeegee]

I flipped past the Limbaugh show this morning, and there were several anguished callers worried sick that Bush would “Souter” this nomination. I’m betting these folks won’t feel better with this pick.

[Metacom]

@Jonathan Chance

In short, he’s on record as believing that Roe v Wade was ‘wrongly decided’. Given that belief I don’t think it’s a terribly far leap to say that, given a chance, he would vote to overturn Roe.

But given that Roe v. Wade has already been decided and is now precedent, isn’t it a leap to say that?

[XT]

Appellate court judge Roberts is Bush pick

Not sure how this will work out…according to the article it will spark the expected fight for confirmation.

-XT

[Sam_Stone]

@Jonathan Chance

How 'bout this point:

“As a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan, for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.”

From Independent Judiciary

In short, he’s on record as believing that Roe v Wade was ‘wrongly decided’. Given that belief I don’t think it’s a terribly far leap to say that, given a chance, he would vote to overturn Roe.

There are a lot of legal minds who support abortion but still believe that, on pure legal grounds, Roe V. Wade was poorly decided. That in and of itself really doesn’t tell us much. The question is whether he’s willing to accept the rule as decided law.