John Roberts as Chief Justice

[moxie]

I was willing to take a wait-as-see attitude on this guy, as long as he was to be just one of many Supreme Court justices. But it really gives me pause to think of him guiding the direction of the court for possibly the next 30 years. No, it's not because of his stance on any one particular issue. It's because of his general attitude toward women. From the Washington Post (though I've also seen these quotes elsewhere):

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

Perhaps, because his own wife is a lawyer, he has changed his mind. But it's more likely that this is really a class issue. Women from weathy families can become lawyers on their parents' money. Women from poor families should be happy with a traditional role at home, relying on their husbands.

Perhaps it did not occur to him that women (and men) can be homemakers and lawyers AT THE SAME TIME.

[olympic]

Since he is now nominated as Chief Justice, and the Supreme Court reconvenes the First Monday in October, will Sandra Day O'Conner sit another term??? It seems like there is too little time to nominate and confirm someone else......

[moxie]

If so, that would be sad for her, because she wanted to have time to care for her husband. He's very ill with Alzheimer's.
I think they should just go on with eight justices for awhile.

[madison]

moxie,
I don't think Roberts will be worse than Scalia ( aka wacko ) or Clarence.

I don't agree with him in many areas, but we need new blood in DC now. He has received the backing by a respected atty. (wish I could remember his name - David???? S.) who argued for Gore in front of the SCOTUS re: "the election from hell."

Who knows!
edited to add the atty.'s name interviewed above.
(wish I could remember his name - David???? S.)

I think his name was David Boyses) (sp).

[moxie]

That's true. Better him than Scalia or Thomas ...

[manskater]

One this is for certain the dems should do extensive reseearch and questioning of Roberts if he is going to nominated for Chief Justice.

[bjb22]

With Roberts' elevated appointment there seems to be some room to negotiate for a Leftist moderate for the vacated associate justice nomination.

[moxie]

Don't count on it.

[probativev]

Roberts is probably the best option for that Bush made that benefits the liberals right now. Look, he's got a choice between Anthony Kennedy and Scalia.(Clarrence Thomas never had a shot, be real). I guess he can nominate a new person out of the left field but I can't see how anyone he nominates will be even less conservative than Roberts. Anyway, the Chief only gets one vote too. He leads the court but the court is composed of 8 other highly intelligent people who aren't easily led by the nose. (ok, I take that back, Thomas does let Scalia leads his nose but that happens regardless of who's the Chief). And being Chief doesn't necessary make the justice the most powerful. I would argue that Sandra O'Connor has been the most powerful justice on the Court recently.

Roberts from all credentials look qualified. I have to say his record as a lawyer is stellar. I think he should be confirmed. He's about as good as liberals can get in this climate.

[Ogre Mage]

Univ. of Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein divided judicial conservatives into two groups -- "Minimalist Conservatives" and "Fundamentalist Conservatives."

Minimalist Conservatives are like Sandra Day O'Connor. They are cautious, like tradition, prefer incremental or "small step" changes and avoid sweeping opinions. They tend to examine every case closely and decide it on the merits.

Fundamentalist Conservatives are like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Their decisions are based on conservative ideology, ideology which the Christian Right and the Federalist Society loves. Fundamentalists LIKE sweeping decisions so long as it is a sweeping decision which favors conservative views.

Is Roberts a minimalist or a fundamentalist? In his hearings he has presented himself as a minimalist, while his writings when he was a lawyer for the Reagan Administration suggest a fundamentalist. In all fairness, those writings were made in the 1980s when Roberts was a 30 year old lawyer. It is now 2005 and he is a 50 year old judge. Perhaps his views have evolved, and/or perhaps he truly understands the difference between being a lawyer and being a judge. At any rate, he has a stellar resume and is regarded as a brillant legal mind by everyone.

I don't like what I've seen of Robert's views and would never have chosen him for The Supreme Court. But given that he was nominated by George W. Bush!t, it honestly could have been much worse.

[manskater]

OM, I'm interested to know why the White House will not release his writings while he worked for the first Bush.<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/eyes.gif" />

[EigthAv]

I like Roberts.The man is rather intelligent and seems like a fair candidate for SCC Justice.I'm paying far more attention to what he has to say now than what he had to say in the 80s. I know I said and did things in the 80s that I still question.I think he is so far handling the barbecue grill session well and that Chapaquitic made quite a butt of hisself yesterday.I loved Bobby and John so much,but Teddy? Why does Mass. keep electing him??? In his own way,he is almost as embarrassing as my imagination of a Senator George Wallace had that ever happened.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->I'm okay with abortion if and when the reasons are justfiable.Using it because you are too irresponsible as a woman or a man to pratice safe sex is inexcusable and causes unimaginable pain and suffering to living babies.Using it as a form of gender preference is un-excusable.I don't use yuppie phrases like "a woman's right to choose" or "pro life". Somewhere between the two extremes lies a sane and logical solution.When in doubt,don't whup it out.Keep your pants on! <!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->I hope Roberts makes it.After he gets in there and we have a solid replacement for Judge O'Conner,I think the next frontier is getting about the business of protecting our right to pursuit of happiness.I see too much grief.Freedom of Expression and Right to Bear Firearms extremists have stomped all over the happiness right.As an American you have a right to happiness provided you don't infringe on the rights of other as you pursue your happiness.So simple.:) Now,bring on the skaters and ledz all get happy!!!

[Ogre Mage]

I hope Roberts makes it.After he gets in there and we have a solid replacement for Judge O'ConnerJohn Roberts was originally nominated for Justice O'Connor's seat, but when Chief Justice Rehnquist died suddenly, the president renominated Roberts for the Chief Justice position. There is still a vacancy for Justice O'Connor's seat.

[EigthAv]

Yes,I realize that Roberts would replace Renquist.Replacing O'Conner gets more complicated.I'm hoping for a moderate......... drifting off topic for a moment....... I'm not saying I wish for this,but I think congress will swing towards a democratic majority in the 2006 elections.The demos have plenty of ammunition now.I don't think it will be a big majority. They only need to go ahead by one in order to once again be in control.How that would play out in the future??? I can only hope for the best.

[probativev]

To lighten things up:

www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/opinion/15brooks.html?hp)

:)

[Ogre Mage]

OM, I'm interested to know why the White House will not release his writings while he worked for the first Bush.I am concerned about this also -- although given that the Bush White House has displayed a Nixon-like obsession with secrecy since Day 1, it is difficult to say if they are stonewalling because of something in Robert's record, or if it is just their usual reflexive habit of refusing to release information.

[EigthAv]

I don't see anything funny in the article.More liberal hypocrisy.The man is being very professional and dignified and deserves the gig.I personally resent the anti-south cheapshot at Senator Jeffi-Poo(sessions).<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->There is some humour in the hearings.Senator Chapaquidic can be so cute when he is pretending to be a champion of the women's movement and/or civil rights.Dude probably hangs out with Al Gore and Henry Kissinger when the cameras aren't looking.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->I predict an 83 to 16 win for Roberts.The hunkies always win and us hunkie challenged dudes have to just hope they will a good massah.:eek

[madison]

If Pat Robertson is backing him, I give him two thumbs DOWN.

I personally am opposed to brainwashing, fundamentalist tactics used in order to fit into someone's view of what the world "should be."

No way.

[probativev]

I don't see anything funny in the article.More liberal hypocrisy.

Ummm....Mike, apparently you don't read the NYT often and just assume it's a "liberal" newspaper. David Brooks is a CONSERVATIVE editorial columnist. That's Conservative with a capital "C". sheesh.:rolleyes

Just to elaborate, here's the encyclopedia description of David Brooks, CONSERVATIVE columnist that wrote the funny article reflecting "liberal hypocrisy" you say:

www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/David-Brooks-(journalist) (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/David-Brooks-(journalist))