Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  

Supreme Court Nominee

Recommended Posts

(Hey I just googled this and grabbed it from Fox news, y'all know I don't roll like that)


Bush Picks Roberts for Supreme Court Nominee


Tuesday, July 19, 2005




WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday picked Judge John G. Roberts Jr. (search) to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search).


Roberts, 50, is a conservative who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, his name has been floated for months as a possible Bush selection for the high court.


Bush announced the nomination to the American public at 9 p.m. EDT — with Roberts appearing alongside the president.


Speaking from the East Room, Bush said Roberts is "widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and personal decency.


"The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the life of every American. And so a nominee to that court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law," Bush said.


"I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts. And tonight I am honored to announce that I am nominating him to serve as associate justice of the Supreme Court."


Roberts, who will have to re-sell himself to the Judiciary panel that voted for him 16-3 in 2003, said that he was honored to be nominated.


"Thank you very much. It is both an honor and very humbling to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court. That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution," Roberts said.


"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," he added.


Experience at the Court


Roberts is no stranger to the Supreme Court. He served as a law clerk to Rehnquist and was the deputy solicitor general during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, where he argued cases in front of the court. He also served as associate counsel to President Reagan during Reagan's first term.


In his capacity as assistant solicitor, Roberts argued 39 cases before the high court, winning 25 of them as well as credit from court-watchers as one of the best litigators in a generation.


Bush nominated Roberts to the D.C. Circuit Court on Jan. 7, 2003. He was confirmed four months later. During his confirmation hearing to the appeals court, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe v. Wade is "the settled law of the land.


"There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," Roberts told the panel.


Quick Reactions to the Nominee


Conservatives and court-watchers were quick to praise Roberts.


Stuart Taylor, a senior writer and columnist for the National Journal, said Roberts was only on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. for two years, but he is well-qualified for the job.


"He doesn't have an extensive record there. But he is very well-qualified. He had a reputation of being one of the best, if not the best, appellate litigator in the country. Conservatives are very comfortable with him. They think he is one of them, but he'd be easier to confirm ... because he doesn't have a controversial paper trail and he has a lot of friends across the political spectrum," Taylor told FOX News.


Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said that the president has done his job by selecting Roberts and made the right decision.


"Judge Roberts is an exceptional judge, brilliant legal mind, and a man of outstanding character who understands his profound duty to follow the law. He has enjoyed a distinguished history of public service and professional achievement. It is clear to me that Judge Robert's history has prepared him well for the honor of serving this country on our nation's highest court, and I strongly support his nomination," Cornyn said.


But Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who last week laid out a list of questions that a Supreme Court nominee should answer, said that Roberts has an obligation to answer those questions.


"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy. I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee," Schumer said.


"I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is — particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court — will decide to answer questions about his views," he said.


Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he wants to know if Roberts will be an "activist judge."


"We have, right now, the most activist Supreme Court in my lifetime. No Supreme Court of my lifetime has overturned or undercut more laws passed by Congress than this court has, everything from Violence Against Women on through, environmental laws, employment laws, all of these things. This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law," Leahy said.


Added Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who also opposed Roberts in 2003: "The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process."


A Conservative First Choice


While many names had been floated as the possible Supreme Court pick, one certainty was that the nominee was going to be conservative.


Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the so-called "Gang of 14" senators who crafted an agreement that called for the use of a judicial filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances," said he had met with Roberts before his nomination to the Circuit Court and he was happy to vote for him then and again now.


"He's a well-respected lawyer, 153 lawyers in the D.C. area [were] supporting his nomination to the Court of Appeals," Graham told FOX News, referring to a letter of support Roberts won in 2003.


Earlier in the day, Graham argued that Democrats should not be surprised by the nomination of a conservative to the bench. Graham noted that simply being conservative was "no longer an extraordinary circumstance" as defined by the "Gang of 14" agreement.


"President Bush campaigned he would pick a solid conservative, I expect for him to live up to his promise. Our goal is to make sure a solid conservative sits on the Supreme Court that is not beholden to any special interest group," Graham said.


Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was called to the White House on Monday to discuss the timing of an announcement. Specter, who will lead the confirmation process in the Senate, has said he hoped Bush would select a jurist who will bring "balance" to the court. On Tuesday evening, however, Specter said Roberts had "extraordinary professional qualifications.


"I would say professionally, it would be hard to find someone with better credentials than Judge Roberts, but you ask a question whether it's a safe nomination. I don't know that anything in Washington is safe if it's a nomination," Specter said. "Let's give the hearing process a chance and let's give Roberts a hearing. I'm just a little surprised that he's already subject to criticism, but this is America."


Long before Monday's meeting with Specter, Bush had been considering O'Connor's replacement and consulting with lawmakers and aides.


Days after O'Connor announced her retirement on July 1, the president headed to Denmark to thank the Danes for their support of the war in Iraq. While traveling, the president carried a list of 11 names to review. Upon his return, Bush scheduled meetings with senators to hear their input.


Last Thursday and Friday, Bush met with five potential nominees, and on Friday invited Roberts for a tour of the residence and an hour-long visit. Aides said the purpose of the meeting was to see if Roberts' character matched his "extraordinary resume."


After the meeting, aides say the president considered each of the candidates and conferred with Chief of Staff Andrew Card and other advisers. On Monday, he decided on Roberts and following a meeting with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Bush called to ask Roberts to accept the nomination.


According to aides, after the president and candidate spoke, Bush turned to the first lady and said, "I just offered the job to a great, smart lawyer who has agreed to serve on the bench." Roberts and his wife then had dinner with the Bushes on Tuesday evening.


Finally, the president called Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Minority Leader Harry Reid, Specter and Leahy to tell them that Roberts was the nominee for O'Connor's seat. In all, the president consulted with 70 senators, including three-quarters of the Democratic caucus, aides said.


Cornyn said that now that the president had made his choice for the Senate to confirm, "the nominations process should reflect the best of the American judiciary — not the worst of American politics."


Confirmation hearings could begin in September, after Congress returns from its traditional August recess. Roberts is headed to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, where he will meet first with Frist and also has scheduled time with Leahy and other committee members.


Graham said the average time for confirmation during the Clinton era was 58 days, giving the Senate time enough to confirm Roberts before the Supreme Court opens its next session on the first Monday in October.


A Successful Head Fake


Roberts' nomination comes as a surprise after an all-day festival of speculation in Washington and on the cable news networks, where the race was handicapped in favor of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith "Joy" Clement. Clement was seen as an uncontroversial, moderate jurist who would likely be passed through Congress without an enormous fight.


But as evening approached, Clement herself told a network news broadcast that she had not been selected. That led to speculation that Bush would go with a more conservative nominee, one who would please his ardent supporters.


Several names had been under consideration, including Edith Hollan Jones, who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans; Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


Other possible candidates were conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III and former deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.


At least one court-watcher said the president's bait-and-switch was masterful.


"I want to congratulate the president for confusing the rest of Washington," former Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana told FOX News, admitting that when he was booked to appear on the air, he thought he was going to be talking about Clement.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.


Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.


Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.


As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5


Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.


Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.


Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.


Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue I give a shit about: Where does he stand on the Second Amendment? I do not trust the Republicans to not fuck gun owners in the ass when they think we aren't paying attention.


In the election coming up, the Democrats ought to nominate a very conservative guy. If they do, the Republicans better keep an eye on the ball. The Dems won't do that, though. They're going to shit where they eat again. My prediction: GOP by a nose in another photo finish. Dems will squall "Not fair! GOP stole the election! Voter fraud! Blah blah blah." Then the election goes to the Supreme Court again. And Justice "Swing Vote" Roberts votes for the GOP.

Bing bang boom, it's a done did deal.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy has been in bed with three republican presidents now, I think you can rest assured your guns are safe...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just pissed he nominated such a young judge...thats bullshit. Next Reihnquist will die and then bushh will get to nominate yet another young neo conservative judge. and then we'll be in deep shit. for a long time. or forever.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allâh is the Walî (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe. He brings them out from darkness into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their (supporters and helpers) are [false deities and false leaders,, they bring them out from light into darkness. Those are the dwellers of the Fire, and they will abide therein forever. (Al-Baqarah 2:257)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, Dawood, it's all good to argue in related threads but you can't just be spamming threads with religious quotes. That type of thing gets people banned. Contribute to the discussion and consider yourself warned.


I'm not mad atcha, even let it ride in the 3 planets thread though it's a bit of a stretch but... see what I'm sayin? It's also not just you but, around here, whatever your beliefs (again, not just YOUR beliefs) we don't let you prostletize too freely.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by angelofdeath@Jul 20 2005, 03:23 AM

OMG!!! h3's part of the n3w world order!!!!!!!!!!!!


All your base are belong to liberals...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This dude is like the stealth assassin nominee... nobody knows shit about him and he ain't saying shit. I can only assume he is as partisan as they come.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this