Daily Kos

Scalia and Thomas are big losers in Roberts CJ nomination

Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 12:43:44 PM PDT

While conservative activists will continue to line up behind Judge John Roberts and liberals will continue to oppose him, the big losers of President Bush's announcement this morning are clear. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both in line to succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, will now never realize their dreams.

The Roberts nomination was horrible for Scalia and Thomas. I may have been good for America.

This morning, President George W. Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to be the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. This nomination comes in the wake of the death of former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died over the weekend from cancer at the age of 80 years old.

While liberal groups will never admit it, this is good news for their cause. Roberts is seen to be conservative, but much less so than his likely predecessor. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has promised to remain on the court until her replacement is found, so for the brief time that Roberts is the Chief and the Court is filled at nine sitting justices, the U.S. Supreme Court will actually be more liberal than the court under Rehnquist.

The big losers in this announcement are the extreme right-wing activists, particularly those of the religious right, who have been hoping for a Chief Justice Scalia or Thomas. Both of those scenarios are now impossible.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are extremely conservative and very activist jurists. If the religious right and those in the conservative community were hoping for a court aimed at overturning liberal precedence, those were the two men they needed in the Chief Justice position.

While he is conservative, Roberts has been a vocal advocate for judicial restraint and does not feel that the Court should actively overturn precedence. Roberts has told senators privately that he will "respect settled law" if approved to the Supreme Court. This statement is important for those who fear Roberts might vote to overturn the 1973 landmark case, Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman's right to privacy when making reproductive decisions.

This morning's announcement is historic. The big winner is obviously Judge Roberts. At the age of 50, he is guaranteed to head the High Court for possibly 30 or 40 years.

Believe it or not, the other winners are the liberal groups, like NARAL, People For the American Way, and others. Of course, they'll never be happy with any of Bush's nominees, but this is definitely the best that they could ever hope for.

The big losers are the right-wing groups, like Progress For America, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and especially the religious right, who will now witness a U.S. Supreme Court that will briefly move to the left but in the end stay virtually the same.

And of course, the biggest losers are Justices Scalia and Thomas. These two men dreamed of heading the High Court, and Bush would have preferred to select one of them for Chief. Unfortunately, timing is everything, and Rehnquists death prior to the Roberts' hearing ruled out their chances and extinguished their dreams of serving as Chief Justice of the United States.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 68 comments

  •  What? (4.00 / 2)

    How do the right-wing groups lose when a right-winger is appointed chief justice?

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 12:41:26 PM PDT

    •  Because ... (none / 0)

      they fail to realize their goal. They were hoping for a Court that moves drastically to the right. Now the Court will likely stay where it is.

      Don't be confused - liberals don't win by getting what they want. They win by conservatives not getting what they want.

      Nothing in politix is black and white. Start thinking gray.

      •  umm, nope. (none / 0)

        If Bush nominates another SCOTUS justice, your whole scenario goes down the toilet.

        Roberts replacing Rehnquist is a wash, and whoever replaces O'Connor will be light-years more conservative than she is.  And the only way of keeping THAT nominee out would be--filibuster.

      •  um (none / 0)

        Your case seems built on the supposition, true or not, that Roberts is not as conservative as Rehnquist.  From what I can tell, there is not nearly enough evidence to make that claim at this point.  The hearings might, might provide some clarity to the matter, but for now this is based on faith and impressions.

        One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

        by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:06:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  also (none / 0)

        This is an extremely short-sighted view of the SCOTUS, imho.  I think you're considering the immediate impact of Roberts as Chief while disregarding that, after a month, the novelty is gone and the court will be under a conservative's control for ANOTHER twenty years.  With Scalia, who is damn near 70, that period is greatly shortened--so now, even if the Democrats hold the White House for the next 12 years, we almost certainly don't get to pick the Chief Justice.  The youth of Roberts will outweigh the experience of Scalia or the rigidity of Thomas any day in Bush/Rove's view.

        One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

        by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:09:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They don't (none / 0)

      The diarist is spouting Rovean spin. Everything we have learned about Roberts shows him to be on the extreme far right. He is more personable and less obnoxious than Scalia -- which simply makes him more effective for the radical right.
      •  What are you smoking? (2.00 / 4)

        Don't be so paranoid! I agree that the GOP is sneaky, but to say that Roberts is anywhere close to where Rehnquist was ideologically is insane and shows you have little knowledge of the SCOTUS.

        I feel sorry for Elwood Dowd, because he doesn't get it. Liberals can only win by conservatives losing.

        Roberts volunteered on the Supreme Court case that granted the greatest recognition of gay rights in this country. He has consistently urged judicial restraint, and he has told senators privately that he will respect settled law, meaning he will not attempt to overturn liberal precedence like Rehnquist did.

        How is Roberts an extreme right jurist? You seem to only be reciting the Michael Moore talking points, but you are refusing to state any facts.

        •  Read instead of write (4.00 / 2)

          Roberts' extreme views have been examined here repeatedly. His gratuitous reference to "the so-called right to privacy" is enough to make anyone who care about civil liberties and justice oppose him.

          I see that my view of you as a "Rovean spinner" was completely on target. You have called me insane and on drugs, and brought up Michael Moore out of the blue. Completely in keeping with Rove-style politics.

          Troll.

  •  I am pleased (none / 0)

    While Roberts is a conservative he is a scholary and pragmatic conservative like Rehnquist and not a crazy one like Scalia. Now we need Alberto Gonzales (who is more moderate) to be named AJ and the court is the same before O'Connor retired.

    "There is nothing wrong with America can't be cured by what is right with America" -Bill Clinton

    by SensibleDemocrat on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 12:47:02 PM PDT

    •  Amen ... (none / 1)

      I wish more liberals would recognize that a Gonzalez nomination would be the best thing they could hope for. It would cause the right-wing groups to go nuts, while driving a wedge through the GOP base. Bush and Rove have been hoping to attract Hispanic voters, and they would be forced to decide between their electoral dreams and appeasing the religious right.
      •  no (none / 0)

        Plain and simple, no.  Alberto Gonzales has forever lost my confidence, and I will under no circumstances support or be mollified by his appointment to any position of authority.  You don't get to call torture acceptable and still receive my support, no matter whom the alternative is.

        Besides, everything Bush gets from nominating Gonzales he gets and more from nominating Sen. Mel Martinez to the bench.

        One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

        by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:11:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Is O'Connor (none / 1)

      Pro-Torture? Wow..I didn't realize that..And I also didn't realize that Abu Gonzales was really a Woman. You learn something new everyday here at Dkos.

      It's Obamazing!!!!!!!!!!!!

      by Chamonix on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 12:52:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Florida Politics is Rotting Your Brain (none / 0)

        I agree with Chamonix.  It takes a special kind of logic to think that replacing super-strong ideological conservatives with strong ideological conservatives who are also 100% political partisans is a positive step.  Maybe Roberts and Gonzalez would balk at tattooing every kindergartner with the  3 Commandments (or however many the right now obeys), but odds are they would rubberstamp torture in the public square if W or Jeb said it was needed.  Say hello to debtor's prison!
      •  Way to dodge the issue ... (none / 0)

        You failed to address any of the points that I made. Why is that?

        And what does your signature mean? You should make jokes about Hurricane Katrina.

        •  actually (none / 0)

          YOU failed to address his concern that the potential philosophical differences on particular issues like torture between Gonzales and O'Connor are being given short shrift in favor of an analysis based solely on a comparison within a very broad ideological spectrum.  Also, the underrepresentation of women on the court is an issue the commentor seems to want addressed that was overlooked in your analysis.

          Just saying, these are questions that need to be answered for this analysis to be defensible.

          One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

          by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:21:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm more concerned with ... (none / 0)

            finding qualified jurists, not quotas. I don't care if the nominee is a woman, Hipanic, Black, or another white male. Just a qualified judge please!

            The point I made is that Bush and Co. would like to use the nomination in order to appeal to Hispanic voters. Liberals could call his bluff and force a wedge between the White House and his religious right backers.

            •  that wedge (4.00 / 2)

              Except that the break within the Right didn't really materialize when Roberts was first nominated.

              Also, as others have pointed out, what if Bush appoints someone a wee more confirmable than Gonzales, or someone further right than O'Connor?  What if he appoints Mel Martinez (the Senate never gives trouble to nominees from its own ranks, he's conservative, he's qualified, he's Hispanic, he's anti-abortion, and he gives Jeb! a free Senatorial appointment in Florida)?

              There's nothing guaranteeing that Gonzales would be the nominee.  There's nothing to reassure us that Roberts is not as/more conservative than Rehnquist was.  Yet you act like both are Gospel, and you're ridiculing people for suggesting that a.) this might not be a great scenario for us and b.) maybe the 25+ year term of Chief Justice Roberts might be the death knell of those very FDR-era programs you're trying to defend.  These are real concerns, and the best you have offered so far is "Michael Moore!  Michael Moore!"

              Frankly, that's both insulting and embarrassing.

              One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

              by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:43:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  my sig is obvious.. (none / 0)

          We need real leaders in this country NOW...not hack politicans who put pork before Americans and the security of our country. We obviously need people who also have some military experience at this paticular time in the history of our country. Katrina is answering many unanswered questions that Americans have, she has exposed our weakness and she will not accept any Bullshit or Propaganda..She will only except TRUTH and JUSTICE..Our country is CRYING OUT for real leadership. I believe we need General Clark to get the job done and Paul Hackett to help OHIO.  

          It's Obamazing!!!!!!!!!!!!

          by Chamonix on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:38:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's The DEGREE of the Wing-Nuttiness, You See... (none / 0)

    I agree with the poster.  While liberals are indeed up in arms over the Roberts nomination, Roberts is no Rehnquist.

    I believe that Rehnquist was probably largely responsible for the Shrubbification of our Government.  Rehnquist was terrible, a real true-blue Bu$hCo brownshirt.

    Roberts is bad, yes.  But he is not as bad.  Roberts' problem is that he is a good Bu$hCo corporatist and is sure to make many decisions that are harmful to America.  But he is not the horrendous excuse for a SC justice that Renquist was.

    "I've been an oilman all my life, but this is one crisis we can't drill our way out of" --T. Boone Pickens

    by bincbom on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 12:47:19 PM PDT

  •  Huh? (none / 1)

    The Court will move to the left and remain the same?

    1.  What makes you think Roberts is less conservative than Rehnquist?  From everything I have read, his views on women's rights, civil rights, affirmative action, prayer in school, etc. are very conservative - virtually Bork conservative.  Roe v. Wade is not all we have to worry about.

    2.  Yeah, O'Connor will be on the court for now.  But Bush will replace her, and likely will replace her with a right with a right winger (i.e. Edith Jones).  Since they are positioning Roberts as a "moderate", they will go all out for the next spot.  Then, the court will take a decided shift to the right.

    3.  Roberts has very little experience as a judge, and now he is supposed to step in a Chief Justice?  We know little about his judicial leanings, other than his failure to recuse himseelf from an important case about presidential powers while he was interviewing for this job.  This is a joke and a cruel one at that.  

    This is no win for our side.  This is a disaster, and you had better take off those rose colored glasses.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 12:51:04 PM PDT

    •  Stop being a defeatist ... (none / 0)

      If you had read my earlier post, you would know that a win for liberals is to prevent conservatives from achieving what they want.

      Have you watched any footage from Justice Sunday or Justice Sunday II? Right-wingers want to use the SCOTUS to radically change the country. While Roberts as CJ will never be the best case scenario for liberals, it will be a lot better than what right-wing activists want.

      And you are dead-wrong about Roberts and Rehnquist being the same - Roberts is a lot better than Rehnquist. How? Rehnquist believed in judicial activism, while Roberts has consistently opposed judicial activism.

      Will Roberts flip-flop on his opinion of judicial restraint? Maybe, but I doubt it. Once he is appointed to the SCOTUS, he is no longer accountable to conservatives. Why would he reverse the opinions that he has held for over 20 years?

      Sure, that also means he is no longer accountable to liberals either. But I encourage you to look at the numbers in the U.S. Senate. Democrats and liberal Republicans are not the majority.

      This is the best that liberals could hope for.

      •  Timeline! (none / 0)

        Your arguments, though, are not considering the long-term impact this nomination has, and still has an as-yet unproven assumption at its core.

        One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

        by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:12:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And your suggestion ... (none / 1)

          is to just complain? What's the good in that?

          And the arguments that you have made in other comments is that we need to think 20 years down the road. And when the Court overturns everything that FDR fought for in the next few years, what will your strategy be then? Your approach is completely ridiculous!

          I know, I know. Liberals are supposed to keep complaining until Bush finally concedes and appoints Michael Moore as Chief Justice. But guess what ... that ain't gonna happen!

          •  Actually (none / 0)

            I haven't made a suggestion as how to proceed.  But just because an alternative is not presented doesn't eliminate your responsibility to consider the potential flaws in your analysis.

            You seem to be concerned with the court over the next few years, but you are I believe forgetting that the court only gets to rule on cases before it, meaning that it would take about a 20 year timeframe for the court to have the opportunity to overturn the gains of the Roosevelt administration.  And, by the by, this is twice you've brought up Michael Moore in order to ridicule people that disagree with your (rather pedestrian) analysis.

            Your failure to articulate why a Roberts court for the next 25+ years is good for progressive causes or Liberals is the root of every criticism directed at you on this post.  All you've done is argue that we'll preserve the ideological status quo while O'Connor is still there, and that's an absolutely useless observation considering that she'll be on the bench for a matter of weeks.  You're trying to put lipstick on a pig, but that don't make it any prettier.

            One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

            by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:34:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  You like those talking points..... (none / 0)

        don't you? You keep saying that this keeps the right from getting what they want.  How?  They want Roberts and they will get him.  They want a rightie to replace O'Connor and they will get that.  So how do they lose?

        And, your reference to "judicial activism" is interesting.  Judicial activism is a right wing canard.  It is bullshit.  Judicial activism is a term they use whenever they don't like a ruling.  And, by the way, how was Rehnquist a "judicial activist"?  And on what basis are you saying that Roberts will show "judicial restraint"?  His lengthy two years on the bench?

        In addition, you ask: "Why would he reverse the opinions that he has held for over 20 years?"  Roberts has only been a judge for two years, so what "opinions" are you talking about? Are you saying that opinions he held as a lawyer are relevant?  If so, then they had better release all those papers so we can see how Bork like Roberts really is.

        Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

        by landrew on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:21:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you know what you are talking about? (none / 1)

          I am completely shocked that someone who appears to know nothing of the SCOTUS would make such statements.

          Read George Will today in the Washington Post. He acknowledges that the Rehnquist court was the most activist court we have had.

          What is judicial activism? Legislating from the bench. And don't give conservatives credit for something they don't deserve. They didn't define the term.

          In 2000, People For the American Way discussed "judicial activism" arguing that Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were legislating from the bench by striking down acts of Congress that they didn't like. Most of them were environmental restrictions.

          Stop giving the conservatives too much credit. There is judicial activism on both sides.

          And Roberts records go back to the 1980s.

          •  Oh yeah, (none / 0)

            George Will - that's someone to listen to. George Will is a conservative hack, his opinions on a so called activist court have no credibility.

            I am no fan of Rehnquist, but stating that Roberts will be "better" than him without any facts and no real track record as a judge, let alone as Chief Justice, is either some serious spinning or wishful thinking.

            Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

            by landrew on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:32:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting (none / 0)

      speculation.  My take is that if the Democrats give Roberts a pass, they will fight like crazy to prevent a second winger when O'Connor leaves.  They will filibuster the next one for sure.  Of course if Roberts's record comes out as bad as some think, he may have a rough time of it. You have to pick your battles. I'm hoping that Bush will be so wounded by that time and we will be so close to the '06 elections that some Republicans will split from him.  Of course we can pray that Rove will be indicted by then and gone.  In that case Bush will need his binky and a blanket!!

      Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

      by hairspray on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:08:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  that all changes (none / 0)

    Once a replacement for O'Connor is found...I highly doubt even the next court session will take place with O'Connor on the bench.  Sorry, but I just don't agree with your basic assumption (that the Court stays pretty much status quo) because that is based on O'Connor staying which to me is a bad assumption.
    •  So, are you saying ... (none / 0)

      that O'Connor lied in her resignation letter? The text of the letter says that she will stay on the Court until her replacement is found. Roberts is no longer her replacement, and a second nomination is unlikely to occur right away.

      It is not an assumption that O'Connor will fulfill her promise to the President of the United States. It is your premise that is an assumption, and an unlikely one. Why would O'Connor break her word?

      •  Well, she HAS (none / 0)

        betrayed the country once already.
      •  no, it's bad because it's short-term (none / 0)

        She didn't have to lie for the assumption to be a bad one.  We're quibbling over a matter of, at absolute most, three months out of the 25+ YEARS that Roberts will hold the reins.  The assumption that O'Conor's presence makes a damn bit of difference in the long run is why the assumption is bad--the point it reinforces is moot.

        One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

        by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:15:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  O'Connor (none / 0)

        Even if O'Connor stays for the opening of the Court's term, it's unlikely that she'll have any effect. She'd still have to be on the Court when an opinion is issued to have her vote counted. Typically it takes 2 months or more after oral argument for the opinion, so unless Bush and the Senate move at a snail's pace, it's not likely O'Connor's extended tenure will have an impact.
      •  Even if (none / 0)

        ...there is a delay in naming and confirming her successor, whoever takes her place will ultimately be deciding come the spring and summer of next year. Bush has said already that he will do anything in his power to quickly name another candidate. I would expect him to name someone by the end of the week.

        Whoever it is, we can be sure that they will be to the right of O'Connor and, hence, will move the Court to the right.

        As for Rehnquist being an activist judge in terms of a Scalia or Thomas, I wouldn't go that far. His record has shown some moderate decisions where a Scalia or Thomas would never wade. I don't see Roberts being significantly more moderate than Rehnquist, based on what we do know of him.

        'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

        by jorndorff on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:43:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Roberts a lesser evil ... (none / 0)

    ... than having a Chief Justice Scalia.

    I have a hunch that this move was requested from the inside. Scalia is aggressively abrasive even to his fellow justices. He's a Grade-A a**hole, and I think some of the other justices persuaded Bush to nominate the affable, works-well-with-others Roberts.

    Granted, he doesn't have much experience as a chief justice. But Roberts used to work for Rehnquist, and I'm sure the old man bent his ear a few times about how things are run. Whether Roberts is a chief justice and regular justice means nothing in the actual vote count.

    •  Scalia is 69 (none / 0)

      Roberts is 50.

      Do you see the trade-off?

      One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

      by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:16:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you are saying ... (none / 0)

        that damage can only be done further down the road and not tomorrow? Huh?

        I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the fight for the direction of this country is occurring today, not 25 years from now.

        •  no (none / 0)

          I'm saying that your analysis doesn't look even a year into the future.  I'm saying that the damage will not be done in a few years, but in decades of systematically writing opinions that restrict progressive gains and programs.  I'm saying that the court is a powerful weapon but a slow-moving, incrementalist one.  And I'm saying that if you can't recognize that your analysis is inviting unnecessary risks to those very gains, you need to stop attacking others for pointing it out to you.

          One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

          by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:46:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The motives are more pedestrian. (none / 0)

      If they replace Rehnquist first, then they don't have the possibility of a prolonged period with a 4-4 even split between liberals and conservatives on the court.

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

      by ohwilleke on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:52:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Scalia or Thomas could not be appointed (none / 0)

    chief justice. They would have to go back to the senate and be quetioned about their decision in Bush v Gore. With Bush shown to be totally incompetant, I hope the democratic senators find some backbone and fight against Roberts.
    •  They might... (none / 0)

      Remember, they tried to filibuster Rehnquist's elevation, and that fell through.  I doubt "obstructionist Democrats trying to change the 2000 election and live in the past" will get the job done.

      One more Justice and John McCain gets his wish.

      by JR on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:17:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bush Admires Justices Like Scalia and Thomas (none / 1)

    Just not enough to nominate one of those two for Chief Justice.

    That's telling us something.

    Roberts is exactly what the Bush Crime Syndicate really admires the most:  a corporatist insider who will rubber-stamp any and all crony capitalist laws that come around for high court approval. As for the CHristian right agenda, Roberts gets it. It's all about the votes to keep the whole game going, baby. And the fundies are sooo easy to play, just push their buttons (gays/abortion) and they will vote for you come Hell or High Water. And never mind the high water, even.

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM PDT

  •  Scalia or Thomas could not be appointed (none / 0)

    chief justice. They would have to go back to the senate and be questioned about their decision in Bush v Gore. With Bush shown to be totally incompetent, I hope the democratic senators find some backbone and fight against Roberts.
  •  Karl Rove's staff wrote this (4.00 / 2)

    I know that they're on here.
  •  Hardly. (none / 0)

    I'm sorry but the difference between between an associate justice of the Supreme Court and being a chief justice on the Supreme Court ranks right up there in importance with the difference between being resident assistant in your dorm wing and being a mere ordinary resident of the hallway.  There are minor perks and minor financial compensation, coupled with significant bureacratic hassles like stupid fights over the menu in the Supreme Court cafeteria and trying to get foxes out of the parking lot.  

    Yes, that's hyperbole, but Thomas and Scalia will value having conservatives replace Rehnquist and O'Connor far more than they will about an administrative job that Scalia, with his sometimes acerbic wit, was ill suited for, and that Thomas, with his disinclination to be in the public spotlight to the point of largely refraining from oral arguments, also likely had no deep desire for.  I suspect that Thomas and Scalia are probably quietly overjoyed not to have to deal with the BS that comes with that CJ job.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

    by ohwilleke on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:49:33 PM PDT

  •  Roberts & Gonzalez support a strong executive (none / 0)

    The Supreme Court won't be the same as before because these two prefer a strong executive over a strong legislature or federal court system. I think this far overshadows particular issues. It could transform our system of government entirely.

    Roberts had no problem with the military tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners, he deferred to the executive. Similarly, in his confirmation hearings, Gonzalez would not state that ordering torture was beyond the powers of the president.

    Roberts has also voiced doubts over the constitutionality of environmental regulations. Hopefully Specter will grill Roberts on his views of the role of Congress.

  •  Look, kid: (none / 1)

    If you want to be a part of this community, you'd better shape up and quit calling us the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party.

    Now, on to your points: You say that Judge Roberts is less Conservative than Rehnquist. I challenge you to come up with 15 things he did to advance the cause of civil rights, women's rights, or gay rights, if that is the case. If you can't come up with how he has, then you don't have a case.

    And furthermore, the balance of power you cite will only be temporary, as in a few weeks. Bush has publicly said he will nominate another justice quickly.

    You need to understand something about the Bush administration: Given the hurricane and the horrible qualifications of Chertoff and Brown (the FEMA guy), the burden of proof is not on us to prove that Roberts is extremist. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he is not.

    •  Look, Dad: (none / 0)

      I don't know about the 15 examples that you want, but here's what I got.

      Judge Roberts has been a strong advocate for judicial restraint. This means he will respect the decisions made by previous courts. This would apply to abortion rights, civil rights, gay rights, etc. Does that mean that he is going to "advance" these rights? Absolutely not! Why would he?

      But, it is also very important to note that Roberts volunteered his time, and no he was not an attorney assigned to the case, but volunteered to assist with the SCOTUS case that reversed Bowers v. Hardwick and was the greatest win for gay rights in our country's history. (There's more worth fighting for though.)

      In sum, he believes that the judiciary is weakest of the three branches. This view is opposed to that of Rehnquist who was one of the most activist judges in recent time. Roberts has stated for over 20 years that he believes the courts should respect settled law. I just can't believe that this guy has been lying for over 20 years, just so he could screw us when he gets on the court. That's just a little too paranoid for me.

      (I know, I know ... go hit your bong, then tell me how that is exactly what Judge Roberts is going to do. I'm expecting that.)

      •  Then, you failed to make your case. (none / 0)

        You have specified exactly one case where Roberts actually did something to advance the cause of civil rights. You have 14 more to go.

        This is not paranoia; this is a trust issue, as I have said before. Bush has made one bad appointment right after another. FEMA's head, for instance, had no experience whatsoever in emergency management experience and was forced to resign in disgrace from a horsebreeding assosciation in his last job. And I have plenty more, if you don't believe me.

        Since you can only provide one instance of Roberts actually doing something for gay rights, you have not met the burden of proof that you must provide. Why should we trust Bush when he says that this man is the most qualified man for the Supreme Court?

        •  And you are ... (none / 0)

          Eternal Dope,

          I like how you came on this diary and started throwing out numbers of cases that must be cited. Now it's my turn. I'll demand a number from you.

          1.

          That's right. Give me one solution. I read through your comments here and read through some of your personal diaries. You are great when it comes to bitching and complaining, but you never offer solutions.

          1.

          That's the number of "solutions" to all of the problems with Bush that I demand that you produce.

          I'll be waiting ...

          •  There you go again. (none / 0)

            You don't even bother to read my diaries, where I actually advocate solutions, like resurrect the WPA, for instance. And anybody can call someone "Eternal Dope" when they can't answer the argument.

            But as for my solution for the SCOTUS, it is not true that I would advocate blocking any nominee that Bush would appoint. Here are some people, who, if Bush appointed them, I would have no problem with:

            Colin Powell
            Chuck Hagel
            John McCain
            Lindsey Graham
            Gary Becker
            Richard Posner
            Susan Collins

            These people, while I would not agree with everything they wrote, would at least show a healthy respect for the law as it is written.

            Roberts, on the other hand, only grudgingly accepts legal precedent, has consistently worked against Title IX and minority rights, voted in favor of extraordinary rendition when he was being considered for SCOTUS, and opposes the right to privacy.

            So, once again, this all comes back to trust. So, why do you trust a President who:

            1. Appoints someone as head of FEMA who had no emergency management experience and who was forced to resign in disgrace from a horsebreeding association;

            2. Appoints FEMA underlings who are little better than he is; look at the front-page diary;

            3. Appoints an AG who supports the use of torture;

            4. Appoints a defense secretary who completely mismanages the war effort in Iraq, and orders his subordinates to use torture in Iraq?

            Now, Bush is saying that John Roberts is the most qualified person in the US to head the SCOTUS. So, given Bush's atrocious record of past appointments, why do you trust him when he says that?

            If you think Roberts is the most qualified legal mind in the country, then you need to come up with 14 more instances of him upholding civil rights. You have only given me one so far.  

            •  And there you go again ... (none / 0)

              complaints and petty attacks. Is this the best that you can do?

              You have asked for fifteen examples of how Roberts would "advance" your laundry list of issues. In my original response, I stated that he wouldn't. Why would he? Sadly, you must have not read that part of my response, so I'll rewrite it in all caps.

              JUDGE ROBERTS WOULD NOT ADVOCATE YOUR LIST OF ISSUES!

              Now, I'll say it again. (I would recommend that you get one of your grandchildren to read this section to you so you get it this time.)

              My original diary stated that Roberts would not be a conservative activist like Rehnquist. Contrary to what you may think, this does not automatically mean that Judge Roberts magically becomes Russ Feingold. It means exactly what it says - he will not be a conservative activist like Rehnquist.

              How do I know for sure? Well, no one does. But I have a feeling, because of Judge Roberts' pledge to "respect settled law," his advocacy of judicial restraint which spans over two decades, and his outspoken opinion that the judiciary should be a limited branch of government.

              You state in your comment that I am saying Roberts is the most qualified jurist for the CJ position. (I don't know how you reached that conclusion from my comments.) Let me say, Roberts is far from my first choice to fill this vacancy. In fact, he is not even my 362nd choice. But, I don't think that Bush will be appointing anyone that I see eye-to-eye with anytime soon.

              Now here's your challenge - how do you know that Judge Roberts will be as conservative as Rehnquist? Here's an idea - please provide me with fifteen examples of why you know that Roberts will be as conservative as Rehnquist.

              I'll be waiting pops!

              •  Wow. (none / 0)

                I hope for your sake you never get called by a bridge salesman or a Nigerian money scammer. You would get hooked in an instant.

                My list of problems with Bush's previous appointees are simple facts, not petty complaints. So, if you have proof that what I said about them was not factual, bring it on.

                Then, you admit that Roberts would not advance the cause of civil rights. By your own admission, he would not defend womens rights, minority rights, gay rights, the right to choose, or anything else. By your own admission, he is actively hostile to such rights and is thus an extremist whom we must fight to reject.

                Then you tout him as an advocate of judicial restraint. But that defense has no meaning whatsoever, because I could mean one thing, and he could mean something totally different. I could mean that judicial restraint means accepting Roe as the law of the land. He could mean that Roe should be overturned because it was a bad case of judicial activism and that Brown should be overturned as well.

                I simply don't know that, and I don't trust Bush when he says that Roberts would be an advocate for judicial restraint.

                I am not expecting Bush to appoint someone with whom I can see eye to eye. I do expect the President to fulfill his Constitutional duty to pick someone who will uphold Brown and Roe and show at least some concern for basic human rights, like O'Connor did.

                I don't have to prove anything. By your own admission, Roberts will not show any kind of concern whatsoever for minority or women's rights.  

                I can be a pretty trusting person. But for the reasons I stated above, I don't trust Bush not to pick an extremist to the bench. And given the fact that I don't trust Bush, the burden of proof is on Roberts and his defenders like you to show that he would uphold basic human rights in the country.

                •  Please pick up a newspaper and read ... (none / 0)

                  Judicial restraint means judicial restraint. It doesn't mean different things to different people. And for the record, Roberts said during his nomination hearing for the DC Court that Roe v. Wade was settled law, and as I mentioned in my original post (you really should try reading the original piece as opposed to only the comments), he has told senators privately that he will "respect settled law" when seated on the Supreme Court.

                  I would like to thank you - you exposed a huge flaw in your reasoning (or lack thereof). Saying Roberts would not advocate your issues does not mean that he would oppose them. It means he would not advocate them. For instance, I could care less about the Florida Marlins. I do not root for them. That doesn't automatically mean that I am rooting against them. Does that make sense? I hope so.

                  Again, thank you for making my points for me. Keep it up.

                  •  Now wait a minute. (none / 0)

                    You just blew a big hole in your own reasoning. I would not have a problem with Roberts if he were neutral towards human rights issues. But the fact is, he has displayed an active hostility towards them. You are not entitled to your own facts. I am glad you responded because you just exposed your own wishful thinking.

                    I wrote about Roberts' hostility to African-American and Women's rights here; everything I wrote about came right out of the pages of the August 1st Washington Post. During his years in the Reagan administration, here is what he did:

                    --He advocated gutting major provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965;

                    --He was accused by the Washington Council of Lawyers, a non-partisan legal group, of disregarding basic civil rights laws and policies;

                    --In August, 1981, Roberts wrote a memo in opposition to busing and affirmative action, referring to their "purported need."

                    --Roberts favored the firing of civil rights advocates within the justice department and their replacement by "people who agree with our anti-busing and anti-quota principles."

                    --In a late 1981 case in Atlanta, Roberts chastised two lower-ranking lawyers for advising two school districts to offer jobs and back pay to applicants who believed they were discriminated against.

                    --Roberts was the main person behind the Reagan administration's argument that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should only apply to intentional discrimination and not to policies which had a discriminatory effect. These views were broadly rejected, as the House renewed the act by a vote of 389-24.

                    --In another opinion overruled by Congress, Roberts believed that only specific programs found guilty of discrimination against women, and not the whole schools, as required by law, were subject to Title IX.

                    --Roberts actively sought to quash efforts to search records of schools to determine if Title IX discrimination had occured.

                    --In a Kentucky prison discrimination case, Roberts argued that it was too expensive to provide equal opportunities for male and female prisoners.

                    Also, it is worth point out that he specifically advocated overturning Roe vs. Wade before the SCOTUS.

                    Now, Bush is a known liar, as proven by the Downing Street Minutes and Joe Wilson's article exposing the forgery of the Niger-Iraq uranium documents. So, given the fact that Roberts is a long-time Bush loyalist, why do you expect him to be any different than his master?

                    •  OK, you had me until the end ... (none / 0)

                      Again, while I think Roberts is a poor choice for the Supreme Court, I still think he is the best that liberals can hope for. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

                      And I hate to admit this, but you were really on a roll there for a while. I was pretty impressed until that final paragraph. Then you blew it.

                      Why didn't you just stop there? You made some good arguments, then finished up with a blogger's version of the Dean Scream.

                      •  Oh, I'm not being emotional at all. (none / 0)

                        I'm just stating the facts. It has been documented right here that Bush actively conspired with others in both the US and UK to doctor the evidence around their policy. Read the whole document for yourself. The US and UK themselves have acknowledged that these documents are authentic.

                        When you get done with that, go read Joe Wilson's article exposing the Bush administration's claim that their Niger-Iraq uranium connection as a forgery. Joe Wilson was Bush I's  ambassador to Iraq during the leadup to the First Gulf War and saved hundreds of lives after Saddam took many Americans hostage to head off an invasion.

                        So, when I call Bush a liar, I am not engaging in the Dean Scream. I am simply stating facts.

                        So, back to the Roberts nomination. Given the documented fact that Bush is a liar, I do not trust him when he says that Roberts is one of the most qualified legal minds of the country. And I am glad you are starting to recognize that. And given Roberts' past behavior during the Reagan years and the fact that followers frequently emulate their leaders, I do not trust Roberts when he says that he would respect the rule of law.

  •  Chief Justice? (none / 0)

    Please excuse my ignorance.  Can someone explain why Chief Justice is so much more important than just Justice.  Understand why it would be for the individual, but how does it effect me?

Permalink | 68 comments