Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Actually, We've Already Won (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  we'll see (none)

    he strikes me as bad.

    but apparently he did argue at least one case i like: for the states against microsoft

    "You will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come. You will choose whether we are known for revenge or compassion. Yo

    by AmericanHope on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:20:25 AM PDT

    •  He's also argued.. (none)
      ..in favour of affirmative action programs (and against them), in favour of some environmental laws (and against a lot of them), etc.  This fellow could be anything from a Scalia to a Souter - he needs to be thoroughly questioned, but otherwise this looks like the best we could ask for in an asshole-ish administration which normally doesn't shy away from their typical asshole-ish behaviour.
      •  If you have looked at his briefs (4.00)
        you will notice that he is much closer to Scalia.  Much closer.  This guy won't turn.  Not a chance.  He is a true conservative.  Do not give Roberts the benefit of the doubt.  Bush Jr. has learned from his father's mistakes.  
        •  Unfortunately, (none)
          being a "true" conservative isn't a disqualifying factor or extraordinary condition.  There will need to be something more concrete than political disagreement or the Gang of 14 will cave.  Not only the Republicans, but folks like Salazar, Pryor, Nelson & Nelson, even Reid for that matter, aren't against conservative judges per se.

          "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." MLK

          by jmaier on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:54:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  please give examples (none)

          "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

          by Adam B on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:57:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  my briefs (none)
          If you look at my briefs and listen to the arguments I make in court, you'd think I'm a shylock who thinks charging 25 to 30 percent interest is fair and reasonable.  I make the arguments necessary to effectively represent my clients.  The briefs that we are all worried about simply show that Roberts has done the same.

          We're working with someone who is, for all intents and purposes, a judicial blank slate.

          •  Well Then..... (none)
            "If you look at my briefs and listen to the arguments I make in court, you'd think I'm a shylock who thinks charging 25 to 30 percent interest is fair and reasonable."

            If that's the case, then YOUR briefs are "stained".

            Break out the OxyWhite!  :o)

            </sarcastisnark>

          •  i don't get it (none)
            how do lawyers live with themselves? You come on here joking about how you helped some company fuck people over. Did I miss the punchline? It truly seems as though the legal profession attracts people who are completely willing to trash their values and  morals, as well as other people's lives, for a buck.

            Under the circumstances, I am very wary about taking any lawyer's positions on this guy seriously, since it all revolves around the notion that, "we're all doing it, so he must be ok." Fuck that.

            •  how's this? (none)
              Much of the time, corporations are suing other corporations.

              "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

              by Adam B on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 11:28:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  WTF? (none)
              To the poster who said that lawyers are all out to make a buck, geez, do you think that stereotype you're promoting is actually TRUE?

              I'm a lawyer.  I don't live in a mansion, I don't drive a BMW.  I've represented indigent clients in criminal proceedings.  I've also represented big corporations in litigation. I sometimes represent clients for free. To claim that I have no values is very insulting.

              I'm part of an adversary process.  I'm not the judge.  To state that because I am a lawyer, I'm some charlatan interested only in the size of my retainer is ridiculous.

              We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

              by Mary Julia on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:29:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  uh (none)
                My point really was that for an alleged democrat to defend some corporatist anti-women anti-environment Supreme Court nominee because "all us lawyers do it" is where it gets really ugly to me. Just because some people are willing to defend ANYONE, no matter how corrupt, for a living doesn't mean we should accept this lifetime appointee's history of assaulting democratic values. His history shows that he has actively sought out or otherwise made himself extremely available to the worst companies and advocacy groups imaginable. He owns stocks in all these companies. He has "spent most of his professional and personal career fighting environmental regulation." His wife is the ringleader of an anti-abortion group. That some people here give that a pass simply because he's a lawyer is utter bullshit, and they should be ashamed for whoring their values for such a lowly sum.
          •  But it all depends (none)
            I obviously don't know what type of practice you have or work for, but do you jump from issue to issue to issue, arguing and advocating for conservative viewpoints almost everytime.  If you can't tell where this guy is coming from, you have something wrong with you.  He has chosen his own employers and causes to fight for.  Why would he all of the sudden change "sides" now.  
            •  PS (none)
              I'm not saying you argue for a conservative viewpoint or anything like that.  I'm just stating that Robert's actions explain a lot.  
            •  most legal practice (none)
              Is completely apolitical and has nothing to do with constitutional law.

              "Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig." -- ACLU v Reno (E.D. Pa. 1996)

              by Adam B on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:47:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Souter was not: (4.00)
        -A member of the Federalist Society

        -A prominent Washington corporate lawyer

        -A member of two Republican White Houses

        -A partisan political hack

        This guy has been carrying GOP water for three decades.  The chances of him being a left-of-center jurist are slim and none.

        DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

        by DWCG on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:37:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Add endorsed by the business lobby (none)
          Unanimously endorsed by the business lobby:
          Glenn Lammi, chief counsel of the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, identified at least three possible nominees that big business would cheer: John Roberts Jr., Edith Brown Clement and Janice Rogers Brown. All three are federal appeals court judges.

          Corporate America would favor Roberts and Clement because both were once private practitioners who represented business interests -- experience the Rehnquist court now lacks. Given their past experience, the thinking goes, both judges might be friendly to corporate America.

          There's a chance too that either Roberts or Clement could influence the court to decide more cases deemed critical to business. The court under Chief Justice Rehnquist has been criticized for not taking up enough cases each term generally, and business cases in particular.

          DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

          by DWCG on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:04:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Good points, except (none)
          I wouldn't call Roberts a hack, if that implies something less than the highest standards of professional competence.  In practice, Roberts was one of the most sought-after Supreme Court lawyers in the country.  He was in a class with Carter Phillips, Steve Shapiro, Seth Waxman, and so forth.  If President Kerry (sigh of regret here) had nominated Waxman to the SCOTUS, it wouldn't be fair for the GOP to call him a partisan hack just because he served in the Clinton administration.  Same goes for Roberts.

          Join the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy -- www.acslaw.org

          by yella dawg dem on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:07:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting... (none)
      but apparently he did argue at least one case i like: for the states against microsoft

      Because so did Robert Bork and Kenneth Starr.

      http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt

      It's unfortunate that case got a reputation as being Liberals against Business.  There's a more interesting story there, especially also considering the judge who had his decision overturned on appeal was a Reagan appointee.

      I also never quite understood Bork's position.  I have to read up on that, as he has argued in the past that consolidation of markets is not necessarily bad, when the results are good for the consumer.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site