Bush choses appeal judge John Roberts Jr. for Supreme Court

[sppunk]

p0735
wbx
AP-SCOTUS BUSH, 15TH LD-WRITETHRU
Bush chooses appeal judge John Roberts Jr. for Supreme Court
Eds: ADDS Roberts comment; RESTOREs **********, detail
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush named federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. to a seat on the Supreme Court Tuesday, delighting Republicans while unsettling some Democrats with the selection of a young jurist with impeccable conservative credentials.

"John Roberts has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice," Bush said in a prime-time announcement at the White House, "and is widely admired for his intellect his sound judgment and his personal decency."

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the 50-year-old Roberts would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has long been a swing vote on a court divided narrowly on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, states' rights and the death penalty.

Roberts stood at Bush's side as the president heaped praise on him, calling him "one of the finest legal minds" in the country.

The president said he had recently spoken with Senate leaders of both parties and said they "share my goal" of confirmation proceedings conducted with dignity and fairness.

In brief remarks, Roberts said it "is both an honor and very humbling to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court." He said he has argued numerous cases before the high court during his career, adding, "I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don't think it was just from the nerves."

The Harvard-educated Roberts learned of his selection in a lunchtime phone call from the president, according to administration officials. White House aides arranged for a prime time formal announcement as they sought the widest possible audience for a president making his first pick to the court _ and the nation's first in more than a decade.

Initial reaction from Republicans was strongly in favor of Roberts. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama called him a "fabulous nominee" and predicted that if confirmed, he would "bring a nonpolitical approach to judging."

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., a leading conservative, called him "brilliant.

Democratic reaction was more measured, but initially at least, offered no hint of a filibuster. "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Referring to planned hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid said, "I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts."

"Who knows about this guy?" said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

The abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America immediately announced its opposition to Roberts.

Bush has said he wants his pick confirmed and seated on the bench by the time the court convenes for its new term in October. Hearings are likely in late August or early September.

Roberts has already won Senate confirmation once before _ he was approved in 2003 when the president named him to his current post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

His professional resume also *******s a turn as clerk to William H. Rehnquist, who is 80 and battling thyroid cancer but recently affirmed his intention to remain as chief justice as long as his health allows.

Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a native of Buffalo, N.Y., who graduated with honors from Harvard Law School in 1979, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts, while deputy solicitor general during former Bush's administration, was hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

While he doesn't have national name recognition, Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice.

In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general, the government's second-highest lawyer, who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003.

Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.

"He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.

Advocacy groups on the left and the right already are gearing up for a fierce lobbying campaign in advertisements on television, radio, newspapers and the Internet. The battle is expected to cost tens of millions of dollars in spending by private groups.

Roberts was one of five prospective nominees whom Bush met with between Thursday and Saturday, according to a senior administration official who provided details of the selection.

This official said Bush's meeting with Roberts was in the sitting area of the residence so that they could get to know each other in a comfortable setting. The president's dogs, Barney and Miss Beazley, were under foot.

To meet with Bush and his advisers, Roberts shuttled back and forth across the Atlantic from London where he was teaching a class.

Bush did not ask Roberts any questions about abortion, gay marriage or other specific issues that might come before the Supreme Court, the official said.

[Mayfuck]

So he's anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-environment...

Abortion and birth control. In a brief before the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." [1]]

In the same capacity as deputy solicitor general, Roberts also argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs.

In 2003, during his confirmation hearing for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts said, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land...There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

It is likely that Roberts's own opinion on abortion and birth control will be questioned during his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Enviromental regulation. Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.

Roberts has also argued on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of the legality of mountaintop removal, in the case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association.

Business-Labor Relations. In a case before the Supreme Court Roberts argued on behalf of mining companies who wanted to use criminal contempt fines to force the end of a strike which had been ruled unlawful. The case International Union, United Mine Workers Of America, Et Al. v. John L. Bagwell Et Al.[2] was ruled in favor of the unions by Justice Blackmun

[Nimrod's Son]

Ah the unbiased AP.

"He's against women's reproductive freedoms."

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Mayfuck
anti-environment...

yes, I've heard he hates the environment a lot. he curses it daily

[Sam and Mike]

He's actually not that conservative. Let's put is this way, Planned Parenthood and other organizations that have been just waiting to pounce on the nominee are actually now sitting back and waiting to see what comes out during the Senate confirmation hearings.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by Sam and Mike
He's actually not that conservative. Let's put is this way, Planned Parenthood and other organizations that have been just waiting to pounce on the nominee are actually now sitting back and waiting to see what comes out during the Senate confirmation hearings.

Yeah. You really can never tell about a lot of these guys' leanings until they actually get on the bench. It seems that most of the attacks on him so far have been based on cases that he worked on before he was a judge. If there were any real big question marks about his decisions on the bench, they would have been brought out quickly. The fact that the main thing most people are attacking him on right now is a footnote in a brief he wrote 10-15 years ago (saying Roe should be overturned), I'd say there's not enough information out there yet to warrant too much judgment.

That said, I read a couple of the guy's opinions from the Court of Appeals and I generally liked his thinking and writing. Hopefully, that'll be a good sign.

[Sam and Mike]

Originally posted by Corganist

Yeah. You really can never tell about a lot of these guys' leanings until they actually get on the bench. It seems that most of the attacks on him so far have been based on cases that he worked on before he was a judge. If there were any real big question marks about his decisions on the bench, they would have been brought out quickly. The fact that the main thing most people are attacking him on right now is a footnote in a brief he wrote 10-15 years ago (saying Roe should be overturned), I'd say there's not enough information out there yet to warrant too much judgment.

And when he went through confirmation before (for the DC circuit), he answered questions about Roe v. Wade and basically said that it was the law of land and he would uphold it.

[Mariner]

Originally posted by Mayfuck
So he's anti-abortion, anti-union, anti-environment...

quit trolling, julio

[Sam and Mike]

Originally posted by Sam and Mike
Let's put is this way, Planned Parenthood and other organizations that have been just waiting to pounce on the nominee are actually now sitting back and waiting to see what comes out during the Senate confirmation hearings.

Edit: MoveOn is launching into action over this nominee. That's not really surprising, though.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Sam and Mike


Edit: MoveOn is launching into action over this nominee. That's not really surprising, though.

Bush could have nominated Jesus H. Christ, Attorney at Law and MoveOn would find a problem

[sppunk]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Ah the unbiased AP.

"He's against women's reproductive freedoms."

Too bad AP doesn't say that, Mike.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by sppunk
Too bad AP doesn't say that, Mike.

i re-read the above text to verify, and it does not imply that he is against female reproductive freedoms. it goes out of it's way to site both pro and neg side of the issue

[beef curtains]

at least i have until october to kill things inside me

[mpp]

Originally posted by beef curtains
at least i have until october to kill things inside me

don't you live in texas? like i told my g/f (we live in Georgia): you'd better double up on those birth control pills b/c i ain't got enough money to fly you to boston to get an abortion


anyway, my two cents: i'm pleased

[wally]

This seems to be a political move.

Instead of taking time to go over a bunch of nominees (the Senate doesn't reconvene for a month) he throws out mister white bread with very little judicial **********, experience arguing in front of the Supreme Court as Deputy Solicitor General (basically, all of his opinions from those briefs/cases are the opinion of the United States under GHW Bush) and an previous appointment to the DC Court of Appeals that sailed through the confirmation process.

Basically, Dems can't really argue much about his credentials due to the fact they sent him up the SCOTUS' AAA afiliate without much of a hiccup. He may not have much judicial experience, but that's not going to stop him. All of his major ideological viewpoints that you can try to glean from his prior casework can almost be thrown out the window due to the position he was in as DSG.

We get a month of the "Who is this John Roberts guy?" guessing game and as a result...

Karl Rove who?

Shrewd.

Plus, the dude's wife is possibly the dowdiest looking woman I've seen in a while.



This could be another Souter. It could also be another Thomas.

[neopryn]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Bush could have nominated Jesus H. Christ, Attorney at Law and MoveOn would find a problem

separation of church and state

[homechicago]

this isn't interesting.

so many political appointments are won/lost over the abortion topic, and important issues are never dealt with. anit and pro people, get over it. he said he'd uphold the supreme court decision, he's bright, and i see no reason to get crazy. bush won't elect a liberal, so no big surprises here.

i'm much more interested in high security clearance leaks that risk national security being treated lightly.

bush has gone from anyone leaking to anyone who commited to anyone CONVICTED will no longer work in the white house. that is INCREDIBLE.




i care much more about karl rove and his dealings. even without this he's a scumbag who tried to ruin mccain in a direct mail whisper campaign about illegitimate black children, saying ann richards was a lesbian.....he cannot win things for w on the up and up. he should not be anywhere near the white house. supposedly even w calls him turd blossom.

[Corganist]

Originally posted by homechicago

bush has gone from anyone leaking to anyone who commited to anyone CONVICTED will no longer work in the white house. that is INCREDIBLE.

No he didn't. Look in the other thread about all the Rove stuff for the quotes. He's said from the very beginning that he'd fire the leaker if laws were broken. This idea that he's moved the goalposts is just the media twisting his words to their own ends to suit their own purpose.

But, back to the topic at hand. I think that you have to be pretty cynical to think that this is some kind of diversionary tactic. Of course, most of the people on this board are a pretty cynical group. Bush had a nominee, and he announced it. He shouldn't have to wait around and hope that the news cycle dies down a bit before he does so just so he can avoid a few kooky left wing conspiracy theories.

[Corganist]

One more thought: If Bush really wanted to drown out the leak controversy, then why not pick someone who would stir up a more heated reaction from Dems? Roberts doesn't seem to be that guy. A month or two of watching Democrats and left-wing groups trying to discredit an obvious right-wing ideologue would be a much bigger news spectacle than watching everyone muddle through trying to figure out what this guy's all about.

[homechicago]

But, back to the topic at hand. I think that you have to be pretty cynical to think that this is some kind of diversionary tactic. Of course, most of the people on this board are a pretty cynical group. Bush had a nominee, and he announced it. He shouldn't have to wait around and hope that the news cycle dies down a bit before he does so just so he can avoid a few kooky left wing conspiracy theories.

i totally agree. unless sandy d is in on it, there isn't anything weird about him wanting to get someone confirmed for the fall. no reason to wait.

unless he's thinking renn will retire soon too so he has a trump wacko nominee up his sleeve for when the turd blossom hits the fan....oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (cue spooky villian music)

[Corganist]

Originally posted by homechicago

unless he's thinking renn will retire soon too so he has a trump wacko nominee up his sleeve for when the turd blossom hits the fan....oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (cue spooky villian music)

See, I find this more plausible. Rehnquist recommends a former clerk of his to replace O'Connor. In return, he stays on until "health reasons" force him to retire close to or during the next Court session. Then the heat would be on the Dems to fill the vacancy quickly so that the Court would't proceed with a vacancy. That'd give Bush more leeway to pick someone more extreme.

Its a lot better theory than the one about them using the nomination to distract from the Rove non-story.

[wally]

Originally posted by Corganist
One more thought: If Bush really wanted to drown out the leak controversy, then why not pick someone who would stir up a more heated reaction from Dems? Roberts doesn't seem to be that guy. A month or two of watching Democrats and left-wing groups trying to discredit an obvious right-wing ideologue would be a much bigger news spectacle than watching everyone muddle through trying to figure out what this guy's all about.

What you don't understand is that the left wing protest machine would have protested ANYONE that Bush nominated. It's actually more cunning to have this gap in between the announcement and the Judiciary Committee meetings because you get the claptrap and the revelations at different times.

I really don't believe this is something done to stop the spin cycle, but I wouldn't put it past him. Friday afternoons have been a favorite of the Bush administration to leak damaging news stories.

[jczeroman]

When does debaser start posting long articles from "news" sources?

[beef curtains]

Originally posted by mpp



don't you live in texas? like i told my g/f (we live in Georgia): you'd better double up on those birth control pills b/c i ain't got enough money to fly you to boston to get an abortion


anyway, my two cents: i'm pleased

i'm back in WA, land of high gas tax and free BC pills for poor hoes