Bush wants Roberts to be new Chief Justice

[gayle]

This just boggles my mind
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/index.html

[SingleWhiteFemale]

The man has not even been a justice, yet moron wants to make him the chief justice?

[gayle]

My feelings exactly.

[maxandmolly]

This was my worst fear last year during the election, that he would get this kind of chance at the Court.
Say goodbye, to our personal freedoms, to Roe v. Wade, to.........lots of things most liberals I know hold dear.

[wander_woman]

The man has not even been a justice, yet moron wants to make him the chief justice?
Well, to be fair, the majority of chief justices in U.S. history have been nominated from outside the Supreme Court, meaning they never served as associate justices prior to their appointment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States. Some, including Warren, were never judges of any sort prior to receiving the chief justice position. We can debate whether such a move is good or not but it's actually very common.

I'm not thrilled with the news but I'm also not too concerned about it. I'm not a fan of Roberts, but I assumed that Bush would nominate Scalia to the Chief Justice position. Given that worst case scenario, Roberts as CJ seems slightly better to me.

[wander_woman]

Also wanted to add ... out of all the candidates Bush could have chosen, I think Roberts is a pretty decent choice. I don't like Bush, I wish he weren't our President. But the fact of the matter is that he is our President and that means he gets to nominate the SC justices. We're not going to get a liberal nominee (which is what I'd like). Out of all the conservative nominees out there, though, Roberts is better than most. Would he be my pick for SC justice? Of course not. But he's a helluva lot better than Owens or Jones or the other people supposedly on Bush's short list. I'm just not sure that this is an issue that Democrats need to spend a lot of "political capital" on. I actually worry a lot more about who the 2nd nominee will be. I could see Bush going extremely right wing with the next one. I think the Dems need to play it cool regarding Roberts until they see how bad the next nominee is.

It sucks that Bush gets to nominate 2 SC justices. I wish with all my heart that it weren't so. I do fear for the direction this SC might take (although I'm not nearly as fatalistic as some; I don't think that this is the end of our freedoms, etc.). But it's the election of Bush, not the appointment of Roberts, that is troublesome to me.

[kris97]

I'll repost from the other thread:

I'll tread lightly on this, because I really don't like to get into these things, but Judge Roberts's career spans far more than 2 years as a judge. He clerked for Judge Friendly, one of the top circuit court judges of our time, as well as for Judge Rehnquist. He spent years as a lawyer for the federal government -- in the Dept of Justice, in the White House, and as Deputy Solicitor General, where he argued, I think, more than three dozen cases in the Supreme Court. He then left to become a well respected partner at Hogan and Hartson, one of the top law firms in DC. He's been found "well qualified" by the ABA, and even the NY Times, which has done a series of in depth articles concerning his background, has found nothing to dispute his qualifications as an attorney or judge. Whether you agree with his politics or not, I don't think people can seriously challenge his credentials.

The Assn of the City of the Bar of New York, hardly a conservative bastion found Judge Roberts qualified as well, "because he possesses, to a substantial degree, all of the following qualifications enumerated in the Guidelines established by the Executive Committee for considering nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court:

* Exceptional legal ability;
* Extensive experience and knowledge in law;
* Outstanding intellectual and analytical talents;
* Maturity of judgment;
* Unquestionable integrity and independence;
* A temperament reflecting a willingness to search for a fair resolution of each case before the Court;
* A sympathetic understanding of the Court’s role under the Constitution in the protection of the personal rights of individuals;
* An appreciation for the historic role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, including a sensitivity to the respective powers and reciprocal responsibilities of the Congress and Executive."

fyi: ABCNY only rates candidates qualified or unqualified.

FWIW, I work for the fed govt here in NYC, which is pretty Democratic, and all the colleagues I've talked to support him. I'm not a fan of Bush, but I support his selection of this eminently qualified candidate.


__________________

[lawyerlee]

I'm actually *extremely* pleased with this decision. This may mark the first and last time Bush did what I predicted and hoped he would do. Shocking, right?! ;) :)

While my political views obviously differ greatly from Judge Roberts', I do not see any reason to question his committment to the law and established legal principles. I think he will bring good qualities to the Chief postition. While I personally do wish he had more experience as a judge, this does not concern me much. There isn't any reason to think he'll be as dissapointing a justice as, say, Thomas (not for his views, as much as for his lackluster opinions & half-assed approach to the position), so I think we should all be thankful for that. :)

Further, I felt strongly that O'Connor's seat should go to a woman, so I am hopeful that will happen now.

[keska]

I agree with lawyerlee. I haven't seen any evidence that Roberts has been anything but professional in his approach to the law; and I, too, am hoping there will now be a female nominee.

[chefker]

Better Roberts than Scalia.

[amew]

I agree with lawyerlee on all accounts. This is the first time Bush did exactly what I would have expected and exactly what I think any sound political advisor would have told him to do. I do not agree with Roberts legal or political views in the least, but he seems to be a very intelligent scholar and jurist with a respect for and committment to the law. Seeing as how I never expected W to pick someone with whom I actually agree, I think that is the most I could have hoped for. While a big part of me wants to denounce the Roberts nomination, I cannot in good faith suggest that a smart, competent person should be kept off the Court because of partisan politics alone -- if for no other reason than that I would expect the same respect be shown to liberal nominees when we take the White House back.

Yes, I am worried for our freedoms, but no more so than I was the day we re-elected Bush. It was inevitable that we would lose Rehnquist and O'Connor this term (or at least one of the two), and it was inevitable that Bush would appoint replacements at least as conservative as Roberts. Heck, if I got to pick the next Supreme Court justice, you can darn well believe I would pick someone who shared my core beliefs about constitutional law. Why expect Bush to do any differently?

I am less than thrilled about the fact that Roberts is 50 years old -- but that has more to do with the fact that he could be leading the Court for 30-40 years than it does with lack of experience. In that respect, I'll be the lone dissenter and admit that the partisan in me would have preferred a 69 year-old Scalia and the twenty less years of a conservative-led Court that it would likely have meant.

[lawyergirl25]

amew, you nailed how I feel about this situation (except for the Scalia part). I'm so glad when someone can clearly articulate what I cannot. :)

[amew]

amew, you nailed how I feel about this situation (except for the Scalia part). I'm so glad when someone can clearly articulate what I cannot.

Well, maybe I was a little hasty re: my Scalia comment. Chief Justice Scalia would indeed be a scary day. Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion he will live well into his hundreds just to taunt us with his strict constructionist antics. ;)

[lawyerlee]

Well, maybe I was a little hasty re: my Scalia comment. Chief Justice Scalia would indeed be a scary day. Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion he will live well into his hundreds just to taunt us with his strict constructionist antics. ;)
That's what I was thinking. As I always say, crazy people never die. ;) :)

[PG-rated]

I'm personally OK with this, as well, for the reasons stated. In fact, given Bush's history of using appointments as trophies for those who toe the party line, I'm almost impressed that he found someone with such solid legal credentials. My big fear now is that Bush will feel free to nominate some right-wing nutcase for the 2nd position.

[lawyerlee]

I thought this editorial from yesterday's Chronicle was good. :)

Ten questions for John Roberts (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/09/06/EDG35EHP8L1.DTL)
San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, September 6, 2005

THE STAKES were high enough when John G. Roberts Jr. was nominated by President Bush to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal vote on myriad matters of liberty, rights and commerce before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now that Bush gets a second Supreme Court appointment and has selected 50-year-old Roberts to fill the position of chief justice -- succeeding William Rehnquist, who died Saturday night -- the stakes are even higher.

The Rehnquist era, in which the court clearly made a conservative shift, underscored the ability of a chief justice to influence the court's approach to constitutional issues.

The questioning of a federal judicial nominee is always a delicate dance. Respect for the independence of the judiciary precludes questions that would force a prospective judge to telegraph his or her inclination on specific cases that might come before him or her. But questions about a nominee's philosophy about legal concepts -- including the proper role of the judiciary -- are certainly fair game. Here are 10 questions that might offer Americans an idea on how Roberts might approach some of the significant constitutional issues of our time.

1. You recently wrote that a judge should "have humility" and that precedent "plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system." Explain what you mean by what sounds like a philosophy of judicial restraint.

2. Do you believe there is an implied right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution? (A right to privacy -- derived from the Fifth, Ninth and 14th amendments -- is a pillar of the landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling that guaranteed a woman's right to have an abortion.)

3. Do corporations have the same rights as individuals on matters such as free speech? (This question has great implications for issues such as consumer-protection laws and health and safety regulations.)

4. Do you believe that government attempts to redress discrimination with measures such as affirmative action or "comparable worth" legislation amount to discrimination? (Some of Roberts' past writings have suggested as much.)

5. What is your view on the scope of the Commerce Clause? (The breadth of congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce is a monumental issue before the high court. It is the foundation of many environmental and civil-rights laws. Some conservatives want it to be interpreted much more narrowly.)

6. How does the government adhere to the First Amendment's call for protection of freedom of religion?

7. What is your view of the "incorporation doctrine." (This tenet holds that the Bill of Rights applies to state and local laws on matters such as free speech or freedom of religion. Some conservatives want to narrow the scope of this doctrine on matters such as separation of church and state.)

8. Do noncitizens detained on U.S. soil have the same constitutional rights as citizens? (This is one of the principles that distinguishes the United States from other nations, and it has been under attack in recent attempts to fight terrorism and crack down on illegal immigration.)

9. What is your view of "originalism," the concept that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its meaning at the time of ratification? (Stoutly conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are said to subscribe to this notion.)

10. Many of your writings during your service in the Reagan and first Bush administrations are causing great alarm in Americans who worry about your forcefully expressed arguments against laws designed to protect civil rights, the environment and privacy. How can you assure Americans of your objectivity in approaching these issues in the future?

Roberts has been widely praised for his legal acumen, poise and congeniality. There is no doubt about his conservatism; it would have been beyond stunning if President Bush had nominated a liberal to succeed Rehnquist. Americans who objected to the rightward tilt of the court had a chance to change the balance in November 2004. Bush was re-elected.

But there is a distinction between a well-credentialed judge with conservative inclinations and an ideologue on a mission. Roberts' past writings raise concerns about his respect for some of the landmark precedents that have secured individual rights in this nation.

Senators need to ask these pointed questions of John G. Roberts Jr. at the upcoming confirmation hearings. The nominee's answers will determine whether he is suitable to become chief justice of the United States.

[lawyergirl25]

My big fear now is that Bush will feel free to nominate some right-wing nutcase for the 2nd position.
That is why I hope the Democrats don't waste their time (and credibility) trying to block Roberts' nomination. Let's focus our attention on the other opening.