Wednesday, July 20, 2005

John G. Roberts

Two blogs

Right now, there is not a lot on these two blogs, but I expect over the next month or two we shall see a lot of links. The first hyperlinked Supreme Court nominee.

Pro: I do like the font, and they have a nice front-and-center of Hon. Dudley Do Right himself.

Only links: announcement of the nomination, which is now old news, and a press release. The "media" section says it will have a T.V. ad by this afternoon.

The backers: Progress For America, Inc.

Con: Site says that Bush has not picked a consensus candidate, which really surprises no one.

Major link: a 10 page .pdf condemning Hon. Roberts. LINK. In all fairness, a lot of Roberts' material cited in this report come as excerpts from his work for clients.

The backers: People for the American Way.

News, Op-Ed, Analysis

The president has picked an astute condidate for the bench, likely to get some Democrats to support him. Joe Lieberman calls him "in the ballpark". Bloomberg LINK.

Nuts and bolts from Todd Purdum of the NY Times. LINK. Like the gifted lawyer he is, Roberts has been careful in his language in prior confirmation hearings:

But when pressed in his 2003 confirmation hearings for his own views, he said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," and added, "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Such comments have made Judge Roberts somewhat suspect in the eyes of some social conservatives. But he arouses nothing like the opposition that conservatives leveled at another potential nominee, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose views on abortion are more uncertain.

Conservative credentials, without a paper trail -- of course. Washington Post LINK.

It should be noted in that careful use of language, that Roberts was stating his ability to follow prior precedents, now he is asking for a position to recast and redecide those precedents.

A jurist thoroughly entrenched in modern constitutional law, writes Linda Greenhouse. NY Times LINK. Interesting excerpt:

His résumé suggests the latter, as does his almost complete lack of a paper trail. There are no flame-throwing articles or speeches, no judicial opinions that threaten established precedent, no visible hard edges.

It is all suggestions and tea leaves.

A complex record, and some what contradictory. But that is to be expected from a litigator and a man with only limited work as a jurist. R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker of the Washington Post show us one more tea leaf (LINK):

But in his first two years on the federal bench, his opinions have been generally noted for dispassionate reasoning rather than inflammatory language. Roberts's short time on the bench, coupled with the relative paucity of his writings, has left critics and potential supporters with little by which to judge how he will vote on the Supreme Court.

It is interesting to note how politically sophisticated this selection was. A judge with slight paper trail ( LINK.) , but many years of loyal work for social/legal conservative. A clean cut, nice looking guy from Buffalo, N.Y. A family man. The president wants a "dignified and civil" selection process, and it seems he has picked a "dignified and civil" jurist.

It all points to approval, approval, approval. And that is so crucial to the 2006 election and the G.O.P. base. Remember, the working theory for 2004 was that 2000 was only close because of a lack of turn out in the base. Conservatives are very happy today, and that was crucial for Bush in the upcoming mid-terms. L.A. Times LINK.

Could a well conducted, and well supported, nomination in the United States Senate return Bush to a comfortable level of political capital, at least short term. Right now, are Hillary and Joe Biden asking themselves if they really should dig in deep for a fight?

Dan Balz and Charles Lane in today's Washington Post (LINK.) take the angle of how smartly this pick walks a line between conservative and consent-able:

One of Roberts's key advantages is his strong reputation among fellow members of the Washington bar, including many Democrats. Those relationships figure to earn him the support -- or at least the neutrality -- of a constituency that may otherwise be well placed to make the confirmation process difficult for the administration.

Democrats have faintly praised Roberts, or stated that a thorough review is necessary. Washington Post LINK. Perhaps they just know that they can't win this news cycle.

Or, maybe some Dems think the moderates in the Gang of 14 will stick to their guns and a lengthy filibuster won't be possible. It seems that Lieberman, at the very least, is already breaking toward approval. L.A. Times LINK.

The L.A. Times still predicts a fight, but no knock-down, drag-out. LINK.:

In effect, Roberts may represent an effort to thread the needle in filling the court vacancy. The selection could offer Bush an opportunity to maximize his chance of a relatively smooth confirmation while minimizing the danger of either conservative disaffection or scorched-earth Democratic opposition.

Check out what Richard Garnett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School said last night: "'I guarantee you that every lawyer who follows the Supreme Court, whatever their politics are, are thinking they really did pick the best boy,' Garnett said in an interview last night after watching his friend be nominated to the post." LINK.

Some of the background story, including how Australiam PM John Howard was around on the day of this historic announcement. NY Times LINK. The SF Gate version. LINK.

There will be some eye-rolling, even among people on the Left, with this quote:

"The Senate must learn whether he has clear, consistent principles upholding constitutional standards like civil rights and the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade," said Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. "We know Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor, and the White House has sent a clear signal."

More reax at: LINK.

Interest groups, as seen in the beginning of this post, have begun the fight. Seattle Times LINK.

NY Times has one bio of the 'ultimate capitol insider'. LINK.

Hard working, academic star. LINK.


Anonymous walt clyde frazier said...

i'd like to point out that anne coulter thinks he's a terrible choice.

8:46 PM  
Anonymous bam morris said...

fuck yo couch, *****!

12:36 AM  
Anonymous fopsie davis said...

great update. really.

7:19 AM  
Blogger copy editor said...


8:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home