Bush selection : Judge Roberts

[briannell]

BIO: Judge John G. Roberts Jr.
Currently: U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia

Born: Jan. 27, 1955

Education: Harvard University undergraduate degree, B.A., 1976; Harvard Law School, JD, 1979.

Career: Law clerk, Judge Henry J. Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1979-1980; law clerk, Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, 1980-81; special assistant to U.S. Attorney William French Smith, 1981; associate counsel to President Reagan, 1982-86; member of Hogan & Hartson's Appellate Practice Group, 1986-1989; principal deputy solicitor general, 1989-1993; head of Hogan & Hartson Appellate Practice Group, 1973-2004; U.S. Court of Appeals 2003-present

Noteworthy: Roberts had been in line to join the appeals court in 1992, but his nomination during the first Bush administration died in a Democratic-controlled Senate. He has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues. Abortion rights groups, however, have maintained that he tried during his days as a lawyer in the first Bush administration to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[Grizlaw]

He hasn't been on the federal bench long enough for me to know much about him, to be honest. He seems like a fairly solid choice to me -- definitely a conservative, but not clearly an extremist ideologue.

The confirmation hearings will be interesting; I'll withhold judgment until I see what facts arise about his record. My only hope is that the focus on the hearings will be on his impartiality and his ability to place the rule of law above his ideology, and not merely on his ideology itself. Both parties have picked up the habit of opposing the other party's judicial nominees on ideological grounds alone over the past few years, and it's a practice that needs to stop (and the Republicans are guilty too; I'm not just picking on Dems here...but I hope the Dems take the first step by not opposing Roberts on ideology alone).

EDIT: By the way, Becca, I assume you meant that Roberts was head of Hogan's appellate group from 1993-2003, instead of 1973-2004, yes? He couldn't have been the head of Hogan's appellate group in 1973 (six years before he graduated from law school), and he also couldn't have held that post after ascending to the federal bench.

[briannell]

Grizlaw - I just cut and copied what i read from Newsweek, so any oops is on them.

-rebecca

-side note- haven't been called Becca since high school, but don't mind
still think these "handles" are odd. grown ups should use their names.

[Grizlaw]

Grizlaw - I just cut and copied what i read from Newsweek, so any oops is on them.

-rebecca

-side note- haven't been called Becca since high school, but don't mind
still think these "handles" are odd. grown ups should use their names.

Are you asking me to believe that Newsweek made a mistake??

What is this world coming to.

--GL

P.S. The "Becca" thing is kind of funny; it was actually a slip on my part. A friend of mine from law school is named Rebecca and goes by Becca, and personality-wise, she is similar to how I picture you, so I've always thought of you in that light. That's why I called you Becca; I wrote it without even thinking. Thought you'd find that amusing.

[briannell]

GL- well, if you like this woman and see her in a positive light than i'm very flattered, and don't mind you shortening my name at all. just so you know I go by many names these days, at 31 my dad still will only refer to me as "kitten", my big sis likes to call me "little spud" and "tatter tot" (although i DO NOT look like a spud!) and of course kids call me mom. as long as it's positive, not picky on what I'm called.

-Becca

oh, on that spud thing BAC knows what i look like, so he should back me up. otherwise, my brothers firm in SF will go after him for mental distress. hee hee

[SonomaCat]

I haven't heard anything about this nominee that makes me too worried yet, either. I'm with Grizlaw in that I'm reserving judgment until more information comes out about him. If he's a good judge that can fairly rule on the laws of our country, then I have no problem with him.

On a political level, though, he is an interesting choice. Everybody was expecting a woman or minority to be chosen to appeal to a voting demographic that is underrepresented on the Supreme Court. Is this the first time in our history that we have potentially proactively made the court more white and male? I don't personally have a problem with that, but I think it surprised a lot of commentators who assumed that Bush would use this opportunity to try to expand the appeal of his party to some demographics in which it is currently weak (namely women and/or Hispanics).

And I will vouch for the claim that Rebecca looks nothing like a spud.

[briannell]

BAC -

thanks for backing me up, checks in the mail.

as for Judge Roberts, I'm very interested into learning more about him, but it seems like a solid choice thus far.

-rebecca

['93HonoluluCat]

I think he's a bit of a wild card for the President. He's only been on the bench for two years...ironically, he has spent the bulk of his recent past arguing cases (39 of them) before the SCOTUS.

On Roe v. Wade, he's a blank page, I think, because he's been associated with both sides of the issue. If he had run for office against President Bush, I think he would have been labeled a "flip-flopper."

[Grizlaw]

On Roe v. Wade, he's a blank page, I think, because he's been associated with both sides of the issue. If he had run for office against President Bush, I think he would have been labeled a "flip-flopper."

I know you were sort of joking, but you do raise an interesting point, actually.

One thing that I know will happen with this nominee, due to the short time he's been on the bench, is that a lot of the debate will necessarily focus on his work when he was in private practice and serving the Reagan and Bush administrations (in other words, the time he spent working as an *advocate*). One thing that people have to keep in mind is that arguments made by a lawyer who is acting as an advocate do not always necessarily reflect his own ideology and beliefs. Before I started my current law firm job, I did spend two years serving as a law clerk for a federal judge in DC, and I have to say that I looked at legal issues very differently when I was working for the judge than I do as an advocate.

As an advocate, you make *strong* statements in favor of your client; you take the most aggressive position you can (in good faith) support. There are also a lot of different tactical reasons why you might raise certain points in litigation (i.e. to force your opponent to respond to them, or because your opponent raised a point that, while you may not feel strongly about it, your client doesn't want want to concede, either). The conclusions you reach when writing a brief will often be much stronger than those you would reach if writing a judicial opinion about the same subject, and it has nothing to do with flip-flopping; it has to do with the difference between acting as an advocate and acting as a judge.

[WYCAT]

WOW! I can officially say I have seen and heard everything now. A griz fan and a lawyer (all in one) making sense. I don't even know where to go from here.

Just kidding GL.

[iaafan]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123055/

But, BAC, what about Slate?

[SonomaCat]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123055/

But, BAC, what about Slate?

Yeah, but if that's the worst than a contrarian can dig up on him, that's a relatively good sign.

[briannell]

interesting article from local paper on Roberts.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 · Last updated 2:16 p.m. PT

Roberts' conservatism may get quick test

By GINA HOLLAND
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- It will not take long to determine if John Roberts will shift the Supreme Court to the right. Abortion, gay rights and assisted suicide are among the first issues the court will consider in the fall.

Roberts was chosen by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a swing voter who angered conservatives by supporting abortion rights and affirmative action in college admissions.

She also joined the court's liberal wing in cases involving gay rights and religion.

In his two years as an appeals court judge, Roberts has not dealt with those subjects. He did, however, write on some of them during his days arguing Supreme Court cases on behalf of the first Bush from 1989 to 1993. His boss was conservative lightning rod Kenneth Starr, who headed the investigation that led to President Clinton's impeachment.

Those writings, and Roberts' ties to conservative groups, indicate he will take the court to the right, said Kermit Hall, a historian and president of the State University of New York at Albany.

"He solidifies the right spectrum of this court," Hall said. "He is unlikely to be a swing vote."

Liberal groups seem most concerned with his role in helping draft anti-abortion arguments for the Bush administration in 1990, and a vote on the appeals court siding with developers in a fight over environmental rules. They worry he may end up being as conservative as Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

For the most part, Roberts' two years on the appeals court have been uneventful. He has written 40 majority rulings; none of has been overturned and only two even produced a dissent. Most sided with the government.

"He has not confronted too many issues that test profound questions at the center of public debate about the court," said Richard Pildes, a New York University law professor.

Pildes said Roberts has been a concise, speedy opinion writer, with special emphasis on following precedent and the facts of the case.

As a new justice, Roberts would not be expected to have an immediate influential role in the court's decision-making, which is done in private sessions. But he will be important because the court is so closely divided and often resolves the biggest cases on 5-4 votes.

A day after Bush introduced Roberts, the Supreme Court released its lineup of arguments for this fall.

If there are no hang-ups in Roberts' confirmation, in his first week on the bench he will take up the administration's challenge to Oregon's unique physician-assisted suicide law. The case pits state authority against the federal government's interest in regulating doctors' prescription-writing.

On back-to-back days in late November, the court will deal with two abortion cases, then an appeal involving military recruiters and the Pentagon's policy of excluding openly gay people from service.

In the last gay rights case before the court, O'Connor was part of a majority ruling in 2003 that found states cannot punish gay couples for having sex. The decision was seen as a watershed event in the gay rights movement.

At the Justice Department, Roberts helped draft arguments urging the Supreme Court to allow public school-sponsored prayer at graduation ceremonies. The court rejected the government's case.

The court hears a religion case on Nov. 1 involving a church's religious freedom claim to use hallucinogenic tea in its services. The last similar case, in 1990, was decided on a 6-3 vote so O'Connor's departure probably would not affect the outcome.

But Roberts could be an important vote in a challenge to a New Hampshire law on parental notification on abortions. O'Connor was expected to vote to strike down the law. The second abortion case involves protests.

Patrick Schiltz, a friend of Roberts and professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, said he does not think Roberts' presence will have a dramatic impact.

"We won't wake up tomorrow and see whole lines of Supreme Court precedent uprooted," he said.

['93HonoluluCat]

On Roe v. Wade, he's a blank page, I think, because he's been associated with both sides of the issue. If he had run for office against President Bush, I think he would have been labeled a "flip-flopper."

I know you were sort of joking, but you do raise an interesting point, actually.
<snip>
As an advocate, you make *strong* statements in favor of your client...and it has nothing to do with flip-flopping; it has to do with the difference between acting as an advocate and acting as a judge.

I know; I just thought it funny as an observation.

[briannell]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8642311/site/newsweek/


good article on roberts.

-rebecca

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

I haven't heard anything about this nominee that makes me too worried yet, either. I'm with Grizlaw in that I'm reserving judgment until more information comes out about him. If he's a good judge that can fairly rule on the laws of our country, then I have no problem with him.

On a political level, though, he is an interesting choice. Everybody was expecting a woman or minority to be chosen to appeal to a voting demographic that is underrepresented on the Supreme Court. Is this the first time in our history that we have potentially proactively made the court more white and male? I don't personally have a problem with that, but I think it surprised a lot of commentators who assumed that Bush would use this opportunity to try to expand the appeal of his party to some demographics in which it is currently weak (namely women and/or Hispanics).

And I will vouch for the claim that Rebecca looks nothing like a spud.

Keep in mind that, if duly confirmed, he will provide what I presume will be a more conservative stance than his predescessor, who was often a swing vote. Regarding his stance on Roe vs Wade, it is true that he argued to have it overturned but the right wing mouthpieces are a little upset that he later "recanted" his efforts by saying that his views in arguing that case were not specifically his own and that he basically distanced himself from that. I'll provide an article for it.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/annc ... 0721.shtml

Yes, it's an Ann Coulter article, but if you read it, you will see that she is quite dismayed at Roberts being selected. She's already comparing him to David Souter, who has disappointed many conservatives since he was sworn to the bench.

If you really think about it, Bush is playing his cards right. In Roberts, he will get a solid conservative who will supposedly interpret laws in the spirit of the Founding Fathers while at the same time having a moderate stance that will appease many from the left side of the political spectrum.

Basically, those following all of this know that Rehnquist will be out soon and I predict he will announce his retirement as soon as Roberts is confirmed. If that is the case BAC, here's where the minority and a woman will come into play. Janice Rogers Brown: right leaning to the tune of Clarence Thomas, female, and black. How could the lefties and the uber-liberals trash someone with those superficial credentials? Bush has some excellent strategists. We have Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales as some of the higher ranking officials. Add a conservative, black female to the Supreme Court bench and things get mighty interesting. The liberals won't be able to smear Brown unless they want to make themselves look like major hypocrites.

[briannell]

If 'Roe' were overturned By Laura Vanderkam
Wed Jul 27, 6:49 AM ET



So far, most senators are withholding judgment in the battle to confirm Judge John Roberts, nominated by President Bush to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, but that hasn't stopped everyone else from trying desperately to discern the nominee's views.


Pundits are making a mini-scandal over whether Roberts was ever a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group. Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way, is fretting over Roberts' "sparse public record." James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, told supporters, "We need to be in prayer that Judge Roberts' true colors will become apparent before a final confirmation decision is reached."


The real issue at hand


On both sides, people talk broadly about wanting to know Roberts' views because the next judge will shape the "direction" of the country, but let's not mince words. Most of this angst is about one issue: abortion. Liberal groups are terrified that Roberts will bring the court one vote closer to overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that overturned state laws banning abortion. Pro-life groups hope, fervently, that he will.


I don't know whether the Supreme Court, with Roberts, will overturn Roe. I do know it won't matter much if it does.


You see, for all the rights rhetoric, abortion is not an abstract concept. It's a medical procedure requiring a doctor willing to perform it. In states where abortion is frowned upon - the states likely to ban abortion if Roe is overturned - abortion providers are already more rare than purple Volkswagen Beetles. Most abortion providers, understandably, prefer to practice in states where people support them, i.e., states where abortion won't be banned.


This reality means that however much energy is spent on Supreme Court nominee battles, a Roe reversal wouldn't change the country's total number of abortion providers much. In fact, a year after Roe is overturned, it would be the rare woman who would notice any difference in her life at all.


In the past year, as passionate people on both sides have dug their Supreme Court battle trenches, a few pro-choice organizations have attempted to rally supporters with reports on which states would ban abortion if Roe fell. Shortly before the 2004 election, for instance, the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that 21 states were highly likely to ban abortion and nine somewhat likely.


The problem with these calculations is that they tend to include pre-Roe abortion bans still on the books. Roe superseded these laws in practice. In theory, some bans would immediately become law if Roe were overturned. But this theory implies that legislators and voters in these states wouldn't be able to debate and pass laws saying otherwise.


Given the split in U.S. politics, many would do just that. Of the 21 states the Center for Reproductive Rights claims are most likely to ban abortion after Roe, seven have Democratic governors. These governors would not be able to preside over new post-Roe abortion bans without risking a party revolt. Of the other 14 states, one (Rhode Island) votes consistently Democratic in presidential races. Though not all Democrats support abortion, it's unlikely that the 60% of Rhode Island voters who chose Sen. John Kerry last fall would be inspired to support a ban.


Another state, Ohio, is too much of a political tossup to count in the ban camp. Colorado might vote "red," but the state's recent election of a Democratic senator and new Democratic majorities in its statehouse implies that the politics are pretty split.


That leaves us with 11 states. According to data from The Alan Guttmacher Institute, these states had 122 abortion providers in 2000. That's less than 7% of the 1,819 abortion providers - a fluid number, to be sure - in the USA. Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas. If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36. Spread across eight vast states, that's low enough to be useless to an average woman seeking an abortion.


In Mississippi, Kentucky and the Dakotas, 98% of counties have no abortion providers; in Missouri and Nebraska, 97% lack them. In these Roe-unfriendly states, women already have to travel hours to obtain abortions; in a post-Roe world of crossing state lines, that story wouldn't change.


Even if all three of the only "somewhat likely" states with Republican governors, legislatures and voting tendencies (Indiana, Idaho and Georgia) banned abortion, that would affect just 48 providers. In a "worst-case scenario" (for pro-choice types) that included a Texas ban, overturning Roe would affect a maximum of 170 providers, less than 10% of the U.S. total.


What are they fighting for?


In their zeal to fight over the Supreme Court, though, neither side of the abortion debate has absorbed these numbers. Few pro-life groups realize they've fought a 30-year battle to put just a handful of doctors out of business. Pro-choice forces haven't grasped that the millions they'll spend lobbying to block Bush's nominees could tip a lot of legislative races in places such as Kentucky and Texas. Or, for that matter, build a lot of clinics near the borders of states likely to enact or keep abortion bans.


Instead, over the next few years, the two sides will fight the political equivalent of World War I trench warfare - bloody contests over 6 inches of turf. Millions will be spent. Nominees will suffer the same "Borking" fate as Judge Robert Bork did in the 1980s. The filibuster might melt with the "nuclear option."


Yet in the end, a post-Roe world will look a lot like a Roe world - except we'll like each other a lot less, thanks to the battles.

New York City-based writer Laura Vanderkam is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.




Copyright © 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

[Grizlaw]

While there may be some practical truth to the article posted by Becca, I really hate arguments like the one the author made.

Regardless of anyone's position on abortion, the fact remains that Roe v. Wade represents a genuine Constitutional issue, and an important one. We need *correct* rulings on issues like the one presented in Roe, and simply saying "well, it doesn't matter if Roe gets reversed; most states won't ban abortion anyway" does not really advance the ball in that regard.

[Ponycat]

I am now offically convinced his appointment should be confirmed. I listened to Hannity on my way back to the office and he is having second thoughts. That can only be a good sign.

[Bleedinbluengold]

I have to agree, Pony