Roberts "not up to speed" on First Amendment

I've been on the fence about Roberts from the beginning. Thanks to Occam's Razor, I've learned in the last five years not to trust anything the Bush administration says, but I've kept as open a mind as possible about a jurist who is certainly to be at odds with most of my ideals.

But that's America, and when 51% of us voted to re-elect the worst president in history, we all knew that we'd end up with at least one conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

My biggest problem with Roberts to this point has been his lack of experience at the Federal level. I just don't think two years of practice qualifies someone for a lifetime appointment. However, I did keep as open a mind as I possibly could. Really, I did. Even when he seemed to weasel out of some very important questions, and gave answers that even Arlen Specter admitted were misleading.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I believe that honesty, integrity, and consistency are very important qualities for a judge, especially a judge who may sit on the Supreme Court.

But even more important than that, even more important than Roe, or Casey, or stare decisis, is a fundamental understanding of the First Amendment.

Today, Judge Roberts admitted that he doesn't have a clear and fundemantal understanding of First Amendment precedent:

In a third day of questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts admitted that he was not "up to speed" on First Amendment precedents.

In an exchange on First Amendments issues with Senator Patrick Leahy, a leading Democrat, Roberts revealed, "Senator, I haven't dealt with a lot of First Amendment access cases." The only one he could cite had to do with media access to prisons. He also said he was "not terribly familiar with the precise legal standards or how they have developed" recently.

His entire answer is very slippery, especially since the question, from Senator Lehey, was framed around the secrecy of the Bush Administration, and White House efforts to block media access to information that the public has a right to know.

The First Amendment is just about as important as they get. If he isn't "up to speed" on it, I don't believe he's qualified to serve, and must not be confirmed.

•  "access" is a subset

  Roberts wasn't up to speed on the "access" subset. He covered a lot of other First Amendment issues. That particular issue is pretty rare before the Supreme Court.

  I doubt he's up to speed on Equine law either.

  by wooga on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:22:41 PM PDT

  •  Equine Law

    I doubt he's up to speed on Equine law either.

    I guess that means he can't take over FEMA then. Bummer.

    by CleverNickName on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:26:46 PM PDT

•  First Thanks for doing a diary on the hearings

  I've been disappointed today with the lack of interest.  No open threads since lunch and no Armando.

  Second thanks for pointing that exchange out.  I missed it.

  Third the witness testimony was in my opinion very interesting in part because the majority of Roberts' supporters came from Hogan and Hartsen - save for a Rabbi and the head of the Manufacturing Association head and a Havard Professor.  The people who testified either against or simply raised serious questions about him were in a word: fascinating.

  The witnesses were really interesting and articulate about why we should take this nomination seriously.  The Dems list was great.  Of course Planned Parenthood got busted for not really understanding the protocol, and the acting ED was thoughtful after her "statement".  

  But most were really thoughtful.  One man talked about the two kinds of conservative jurist prudence that seemed to really provoke some thought from Arlen Specter.  Another woman talked about the powers vested in the Chief Justice and the Congress' ability to distribute that power.  Again that really interested Specter.  She was a Dem witness.

  Susan Thistlewaite (minister and professor of religion and government) really knocked one out of the box as the last witness when Jeff Sessions in essence challenged her devotion to God - you have to see that one yourself.  The Coburn exchange with her only showed his earlier crocodile tears were just that.

  Anyhow, thanks for your diary so I had some place to put that little bit somewhere.

  I kept thinking "It's the witnesses stupid!"

  by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:33:10 PM PDT

•  Roberts is not smart enough is a dog

  that won't hunt.

  The problem with Roberts is not that he isn't smart enough, it is that he is too partisan.  Being a judge calls for a temperment that is evenhanded.  He has made a career out of being a pointedly conservative partisan political lawyer.

  by ohwilleke on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:36:28 PM PDT

  •  Good Point

    Judge Roberts essentially whisked away his early writings during the Reagan Administration by claiming that he was just a young staffer.  

    His work during the administration of President George H. W. Bush was hidden behind attorney client privilege asserted by President George W. Bush.  We know the positions Judge Roberts took in those briefs and we know they were extraordinarily partisan.  To the extent that Senate Judiciary Committee members tried to get into these issues, Judge Roberts demurred on the basis that these issues were likely to come before the Supreme Court.  However, we also know that Judge Roberts believes that a legal interpretation that can get four votes is almost inherently reasonable.

    by eafredel on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 06:24:15 PM PDT

•  Frau Duo-brow

  made me puke, fascist.

  by jobiuspublius on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 07:25:25 PM PDT