Thursday, July 21, 2005

John G. Roberts, Jr.

What's most extraordinary about Bush's much-anticipated announcement of his Supreme Court nominee has been the non-story it has so quickly become. It's been just 2 days since Bush gave the nod to John Roberts, but already it seems as though the nation has turned its collective attention to other things. With little fight coming from the Democrats so far, has the Bush team hit upon the perfect Supreme Court nominee--conservative enough to please Republicans, not ultra-conservative enough to prompt the Dems to all out war, and with a limited record that should grease his confirmation?

Here's what the Washington Post had to say about him:

Roberts is simultaneously skeptical of federal power over the states and supportive of executive-branch power in foreign and military affairs, and his sparse judicial record resembles the conservatism of a man he once worked for at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

"I would say that what unites a lot of positions he's taken publicly is that he would be more deferential to the executive branch than a lot of other judges would be," said Richard A. Samp, chief counsel of the conservative Washington Legal Foundation, which represented the ex-POWs. "The fact that he clerked for Rehnquist, who is perhaps of all the justices the most deferential to elected branches of government, may mean that to an extent he follows in the same mold."

Some left-leaning groups have mobilized a campaign against Roberts, but it doesn't appear that they've gotten much traction as of yet. Again the Post:

NARAL Pro-Choice America, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and MoveOn.org said they will oppose Roberts because of his views on abortion, school prayer and other issues.
So, is this the non-story of the year? Are we already looking at our next Supreme Court Justice?

3 Comments:

At 22/7/05 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe said...

It sure would seem so. However, keep in mind that things won't heat up until September when the hearing begin. However, as a story in the WSJ noted today, by then it may be too late.

Keep in mind that I don't believe that Clarence Thomas was hitting much resistence until someone named Anita Hill came out of the woodwork to recount Justice Thomas' quest for the source of a pubic hair found on his soft drink can. A little trivia, can anyone remember the name of the porno flick mentioned - ad nauseum - in those hearings??

When you look at the history of Supreme Court nominations, it has not been until recently that the confirmation process have taken such a partisan slant. I don't know the specifics, but I do recall a recent story showing that most are confirmed by nearly unanimous votes.

What is even more interesting is how frequently the nominee appears to "turn" after being named to the bench. After all, Sandra Day O'Connor was a Reagan appointee, but has frequently voted with the moderate to liberal bloc of the bench.

Once appointed to the highest court in the land for life, I guess that political expediency is no longer a factor, leaving judicial philosophy to dictate how a justice rules. That is, if the justice is a true jurist and not simply a political hack or lacky.

Fortunately, that shouldn't be a problem for someone with the stellar CV compiled by Judge Roberts. It isn't like he worked in the Bush White House or anything. Or clerked for a justice who is, as the Samp put it in the Post article, "perhaps of all the justices the most deferential to elected branches of government."

Wait a minute....

 
At 25/7/05 10:11 AM, Blogger ze roberto said...

Well, it appears I might have spoken too soon as now Robert's disputed membership in the conservative Federalist Society is quickly gaining traction with the media. The back and forth and hair-splitting would be amusing if the stakes weren't so high. For those that haven't seen the story, several media outlets reported that Roberts had been/is a member of the Federalist Society. He denied this claim and asked said outlets to print retractions. They did. Now it's come out that he was listed in the Federalist Society's '97-'98 Leadership Directory as a steering committee member for the DC chapter. Roberts now says he doesn't "recollect" ever being a member. But this directory would suggest otherwise. (Not to mention the fact that if he can't remember something that happened 8 years ago, we should all be worried.) Of course, the term "membership" has now come under scrutiny. If you don't pay dues but participate in activities, are you a member? Seems all pretty petty to me, but as the Dems point out, with such a limited judicial history, there's not much else on which to gauge Robert's judicial philosophy. Still, it's a far cry from the fabled pubic hair on the coke can.

 
At 26/7/05 11:04 AM, Blogger Carolyn P said...

What bugs me is not that he was or wasn't a member. We know he's conservative. The conservative groups are falling all over themselves about it. The American Center for Law and Justice stated "The President has delivered exactly what he said he would.." referring to Bush's campaign promise to appoint justices in the vein of Scalia and Thomas.
The issue, once again, is the White House's inability to tell the truth. First, he wasn't a member. Now, he can't recall if he was or wasn't?!? Please. If he was a member, say so. If he was in the leadership directory, say so. Its like they can't help lying. Scary stuff!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home