RSS
Using PayPal
John Roberts the New Chief Justice
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Thursday, Sep 29 2005, 12:07PM
Rehnquist has been succeeded. Time will tell if he helps to undo Roe v. Wade and Americans' rights to privacy. My gut instinct suggest that he will prove to be a fairer and more decent judge than most progressives think.
But that choice was what Democrats lost in the last election. While John Kerry was off debating who was and wasn't a hero in yesteryear's wars, he should have been saying: "It's the Supreme Court, stupid."
The real battle is the next one. And very possibly the one after that -- as Bush may get two more chances to plant his presidential DNA in the Supreme Court.
But for now -- Roberts is far better than Scalia or Thomas would have been as Chief. In my book, this is a minor victory for some of those who have helped chasten the White House via the stem cell battle, the Bolton Battle, and the battle over social security privatization.
But the real evidence will be in how reasonable or outrageous Bush's next Supreme Court appointment will be. Stay tuned.
On newly annointed Chief Justice John Roberts, Senator Jay Rockefeller just forwarded this statement to TWN, and I think it is a pretty good assessment of most Dems who supported Roberts:
In Judge Roberts, the nation is presented with a nominee who possesses an extraordinary intellect, a modest temperament and a steady hand. I see in him the will and the ability to seek common ground among the justices of the court on important national issues. And I believe he possesses sufficient humility, as a man and as a judge, to be mindful of the powerful impact of his actions on the lives of average Americans.Four days of intensive hearings allowed all of us, and much of America, to come to know something of John Roberts -- and to observe and assess what we don't know. None of us can fully fathom the matters that will be determined, and the people who will be affected, by a judge with lifetime tenure on the highest court of the land. John Roberts today very likely becomes the Chief Justice of a generation.
It is not surprising that this President would select a nominee with whom I disagree on some important issues, particularly as articulated in his early policy work. But it is reassuring, and ultimately determinative, that the President has selected a nominee who asserts with conviction, supported by the record, that he is not an ideologue -- that he takes precedent as established law and people and cases as they come before him. I take him at his word, and trust that in interpreting and applying the law, he will be his own man.
Yet once a nominee's high credentials and unimpeachable integrity have been established, the selection of a Supreme Court justice further demands of us a leap of faith. And it is in that leap of faith that we must attempt to know more: Who is he as a person? What is his understanding of the human condition? Does he take seriously our fundamental responsibility to people, as well as to legal concepts?
Many of my readers don't want to abide by my giving the White House a pass on Roberts -- but I think we won something in getting him over some of the more unacceptable choices that Bush might have tried to shove down the nation's throat.
But in this choice, the White House divided Dems. Dems in turn need to begin pushing issues -- like pushing a credible 2-state solution between Israel and Palestine -- that divide Republicans.
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - The Cost of Dreier Not Taking the Helm: Jim Pinkerton's Two Cents» Next Article - Bolton-Loyalist Jeffrey Gedmin Joining America's UN Mission
Has Roberts ever said or written anything that actually demonstrates his "extraordinary intellect"?
Surprising that anyone still believes what any republican says to them. Have we not heard enough bold faced lies to last a lifetime? Roberts is different? He has been groomed for just this position. And he has probably told many untruths behind closed doors to congresspeople.
D.C.ers are soo gullible. A smile, a quiet manner, good grades, and look we have a "good man." Never mind who he supports. The fact that his wife is one of the far right wingers on women's rights should be instructive. There is a vote coming up real quick re abortion rights. We shall see. I think women's rights are going down the tubes. And the dems are just as quilty.
And I thought everyone in D.C. wanted Kerry. Wasn't he more "electable?" I wanted the other guy -- the noisy one.
I predict that Roberts will be substantially worse than progressives fear, but that it will take the better part of a decade for it to become clear.
As I read him, Roberts has every jot of Rehnquist's reflexive racism, adds sexism and probably homophobia, matches Thomas's deference to executive power, trumps the court's already submissive attitude towards capital, and lards on top Scalia's ability to tune any opinion to his ideology. Worst, and most dangerous, unlike Scalia and Thomas he is personable and, I fear, will show the ability to create consensus on the court for his opinions where none would have existed absent his influence, even with a more-conservative vote in his stead.
The instructive lesson is his ability to influence the GHWB solicitor general's office not to defend Metro Broadcasting v. FCC. Starr was a hack, but not to my knowledge a racist. GHWB had his flaws, but strong opposition to affirmative action was not among them. Roberts, however, wrote "War Between The States" instead of "Civil War" -- and when you grow up privileged on the shore of Lake Michigan and attend Harvard, not Auburn, that means only one thing.
If he could steer GHWB's SG's office to his way of thinking, he'll be able to steer the court, too. If you're a wealthy, white, straight, male shareholder in the top percentile of income and assets, you should be happy.
If not, you should dread the next three decades of SC decisions.
Well, here's hoping you're correct, Steve. But neither you nor Senator Rockefeller can make any judgements whatsoever about this man's 'extraordinary intellect', 'modest temperament' or 'steady hand' since he refused to answer any substantive questions at his hearings. Speaking for myself, that fact alone tells me everything I need to know. What little we know of his writing contradicts your assessment as well.
I predict this man will be another malignant, metastatic cancer upon upon our beloved country, as virtually every other Bush-bot appointee has been. I hope, as always, I'm wrong. I haven't been as yet.
I worry about the reason why this man was nominated: not his views on abortion, or race, or class or any of the topics we have focused on, but the power of the presidency. Roberts has long been an ardent and capable proponent of greater executive power; this is why he, and not Scalia, who still believes in a nominally independent judiciary, got the nod. George W. Bush cares only about George W. Bush and right now he needs a Supreme Court that will allow him to do what he wants, how he wants, when he wants. Bork was cut from the same cloth: his firing of Archibald Cox was nothing short of an assertion that President Nixon was beyond investigation. Watch for another rabid executive privelege advocate or maybe just a blind Bush partisan to be the next nominee.
I also question the evidence of his "extraordinary intellect". Scalia is quite intelligent as well.. if a Scalia clone were nominated, would you support his confirmation.
Moreover, a Supreme Court justice should have a sense of justice for all (seems obviousy) which I don't get from Roberts' comments on women and minorities.
He seems to me, to be blunt, a sanctimonious prick.
Steve, I know that your evluations of these nominations are tempered by an understanding that the Democrats have little power, and that Bush has an incredible ability fail even the lowest expectations of his Presidency, but what would be wrong with the Democrats presenting a unified front in opposition to Roberts, without filibustering? Just because Roberts is the best that Bush could be expected to appoint doesn't mean that he is adequately qualified---he is not.
Don't fall into the trap of playing into Bush's lowered expectations game.
Let me follow up:
For the coming nomination, we have two scenarios: what actually has transpired, or B), a unanimous Democratic opposition to Robers, with clearly articulated reasons for voting no.
Which do you think puts the Democrats in a better position for the next vote?
I think the answer is obvious.. don't you?
Luttig or Alito, that is who I am rooting for. That is the kind of guy many Republican voters in fall 2004 wanted and if Bush does not want to have an uprising in his base, that is who he needs to pick.
does roberts give a shit about the environment or the dwindling number endangered species in the US and abroad? i suspect not. which side of the big elephant in the room (overpopulation) is this clowny on - i bet i can guess.. the wrong one.
he's another god freak that thinks jesus is coming in big jet plane for all the rich white people. not good for all the rest of us reality based people who would like the next generation to have an inhabitable planet.
There was never a chance that the Roberts nomination would be withdrawn or defeated, simply because there were insufficient grounds for any of the 55 Republican Senators to oppose Roberts. The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee did the right thing by questioning him for 2-1/2 days in committee, and putting on record his evasiveness and refusal to answer questions. But there was never a valid reason to mount a party-led public relations campaign against Roberts. That would not only have been futile, it would have also have alienated many moderate voters. A few million of their votes are needed to gain ground in the next 2 elections.
"My gut instinct suggest that he will prove to be a fairer and more decent judge than most progressives think."
My gut instinct suggest that you is an idiot.
Maxwell, there's just never a good enough reason to oppose Bush, the prime example being the war resolution in 2002. Of course the Democrats had not good reason to oppose that, and of course they should not have presented a unified opposition to Roberts...sheesh, how stupid of me to think otherwise.
Well, first let us note that Robert Morrow is also for this guys. Steve, you are good and honest man as far as I can tell, anyway. I reserve comment on the Rockefeller's of this world. Support who you want. However, I suspect you will be joining a long list of people who will be lamenting "how the hell did we give THIS guy a free pass". Hope I'm wrong.
The guy is a corporate stooge. Period.
--That would not only have been futile, it would have also have alienated many moderate voters.-- Maxwell
Please. The Republicans blocked Clinton's judicial nominees for YEARS and didn't suffer one whit for it at the ballot box. Quite the contrary.
The Democrats are appeasers. Plain and simple.
As a OUT gay man, I'm not sure how I feel about having a closet case as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
A lie is a lie is a lie...
Is there really evidence about Roberts?
Apparently another potential Bush nominee who is no longer considered a candidate IS gay.. Michaelangelo Signorile claims this is the reason the White House stopped talking about nominating him----according to Signorile, this judge was having sex in DC gyms. Signorile heard this from multiple sources.
If you go to Americablog, you can find the name... the story does gibe with the timeline for a certain person whose name was VERY prominent one year ago and who is now definitely not a candidate, but for no reason that has been given.
Bush has been consistent in saying what he wanted in a supreme court justice" men of the likes of Scalia and Thomas. Bush found someone whom had no record of speaking out in the manner of Scalia or Thomas. You can not assume simply because he is said to be highly intelligent, et al that makes him a good man. Most if not all of Hitler's upper echelon were men and women with graduate level University degrees. The most compelling comparsion is Albert Speer. Hitler loved his architechture and brought him into the party as the designer par excellance of the Third Reich. By the end of the war as Minister of Munitions he had overseen the use of slave labor to keep the Reich armed and had made sure Jews and other undesirable's with the skills necessary to run the armament factories did not disappear to the Death Camps. I see nothing in Bush's or Robert's records to make me believe he is not cut from the same clothe. Many will find the parallel distasteful but the history of evil educated men is without peer in the history of the West when one looks at NAZI Germany.
Robert - I think most people who develop that kind of extreme (nazi or whatever) pathology are self-hating ______ (fill in the blank - Jews, queers, DAR ladies, you name it).
Ask you gay friends what they think of Roberts. I live in the NYC suburbs and most of the gay men here are married, with familes, in the closet. Open your eyes.
Do you think George (heinous penis) Bush isn't into butt sex? Don't remember ready about the BF from Kentucky? Gaydar not working? WTF?
Do you people live under rocks or what?
Dems in turn need to begin pushing issues -- like pushing a credible 2-state solution between Israel and Palestine -- that divide Republicans.
1. Should it be done before or after purging the anti-Semites from the Left?
2.
Why the Left Hates Israel?
Steve,
Is it to early to think about impeaching Roberts?
Check out http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005608.php#more
Roberts took part in Florida 2000 thuggery. His appointment is payback for that.
He's no "brilliant jurist"... he's a thuggish enforcer.
Steve, I think you make the right call 90% of the time, but you're on the wrong side of history here.
Reader Comments (22) - post a comment