Bush Has Made His Supreme Court Pick

WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush will announce his nominee to the Supreme Court at 9 p.m. EDT, a senior administration official said.

Is Paula Abdul still in the lead?

Nah, Simon called her "bloody awful", and we all know how much Bush follows Cowell....

Or is that how much Cowell follows Bush? O.O

hmmm too bad for Bush that Leni Riefenstahl died recently.... (joke)

The pick is John G. Roberts (and if you said, "who?", you're not alone).

Robert's track record is limited, but leans hard towards the extremist right. He has opined that Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided and should be overruled" (he claimed he would apply the law in spite of his personal views when appointed to the US Court of Appeals, but that doesn't speak to what he would do in a position to overturn the decision).

He is actively and consistantly hostile to environmental interests, supporting mountaintop removal and questioning the constitutionality of the endangered species act on (believe it or not) interstate commerce grounds.

He has sought to bring criminal contempt fines against striking mine workers and said prisoners in Guantanamo have no enforceable human rights. He's worked against civil rights and sought to weaken the seperation of church and state.

In case after case, he consistantly defended the wealthy and powerful against the citizenry. He is a wrecking ball for the rich with a deceptive charm, a platinum fist in a velvet glove.

I doubt the milquetoast middle-of-the-road Democrats have enough juice to block this reactionary judicial activist from the court, but we can always hope.

...and he eats babies. Don't forget that.

Wikipedia has a good synopsis of Roberts and his career. Scroll about half way down to Notable arguments on behalf of clients for some interesting background on his legal decision-making style.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

I will not rant. I will not rant. I will. . .(snaps rubber band on wrist) Ouch!

"Roberts was arguing a case for the first Bush administration, on abortion, and stated that Roe v. Wade 'was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'"

Rape and pillage. Thank you, Bush administration.

'Many of the positions he's taken are positions he took as an advocate. . .representing a client.' Speaks volumes for the man's personal integrity, does it not?


Time to dust off my protest gear and get back to it.

Yes, this confirmation is just wrong on soooooooooo many levels. I ask myself what the president was thinking, but then I remember - Oh he doesn't think, he just does what he wants.

I am sooooo writing my senators!


You go Euterpe!!





*smart women vote*

The cases he chose to take in private practice do say a great deal about his priorities, if not his integrity.

The fact that he's only got two years on the bench says a lot about Bush's priorities. The White House isn't looking for the best jurist, they're looking for somebody without a record that they can slide in under the radar.

I notice the Wikipedia removed the reference to his alleged conviction for beastiality -- I assume that it was fabricated.

Typically one sided. He also said that Roe had legal precident and that he would not be in favor of overturning an established precident.

Carry on wit yer lynching and don't let the facts get in tha way.

*crosses fingers*


I really hope Roe v. Wade is overturned. Ethical science can not support the current abortion laws, abortion should remain legal but the law needs to catch up to science.

If you read the transcript of the hearings, what he said was that from the perspective of an appeals court judge, Roe v. Wade was settled law. He took pains to emphasize that it wasn't the place of the appeals court to do anything at odds with the Supreme Court. When asked directly whether women have a constitutionally protected right to choose, he dodged the question.

I don't think anybody has asked him what he would do as a Supreme Court justice, because frankly I don't think it occured to anybody that he would ever be one.

"'Wrongly decided and should be overruled'" gives me absolutely no indication that he is not, in fact, 'in favor of overturning an established precedent.' Contradictions abound.

Granted, I need to take a much closer look at Roberts' professional history, but, thus far, I am unimpressed.

P.S. It is with great deference that I, for one, entered this conversation. I do not intend to 'lynch' anyone. Actually, that word is offensive to me.

It's true....you can be against abortion and pro-choice. That's what the 'choice' part of pro-choice means, y'know.
Oh, and lets set the record a bit straight on his 'anti-environment' stance:



So, according to Roberts, you can't use the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify toad protection. Now, unless there's a fire sale on frog legs, I have to agree with him that you shouldn't bend the Constitution in that way. There's plenty of other justifications that can be used. Saying he's anti-environment based on this decision is a bit of a stretch, IMHO.

Personally, it sounds to me like this guy's a much more balanced pick than I would've expected out of Bush. I think it's a bit early to get out the pitchforks and storm Washington on this nominee.

Besides, we still have Renquist's replacement to worry about.

According to what I have read he is a literalist on constitutional matters. He wants congress to make the laws and the supreme court will uphold it if it is constitutional. Legal precidence will stand as is. There is no evidence as even you admit that he would overturn Roe so maybe you libs could settle down a bit instead of taking the easy road and simply hating him BC Bush likes him.

This was a much earlier statement than his legal precident one.

Maybe, but he's also argued to limit citizen lawsuits for breaches of environmental law and defended certain dicey mining practices (such as blowing the tops off mountains and dumping the rubble into streams), in addition to being an active member of groups that condone stripping away environmental protections.



In certain of his writings, he has been very non-literal, indeed downright creative, in interpreting the Constitution. He certainly didn't interpret the Bill of Rights very literally when he argued for the prosecution of people who burn the flag, and his understanding of the establishment clause seems to include significantly more exceptions and special cases than a straight reading of the text would support.

From what I've read he's not a true constitutionalist at all. As a member of the Federalist Society, he's more inclined to undermine state's rights in favour of a stronger standard of Federal rule. That would seem to be anti-constitutionalist to me.

Well that shouldn't take too long. he's only got 2 years on the bench.

I am certainly no expert... just regurgitating what I read in this mornins paper... you may be right but I doubt it will make much difference. Very little chance he will not be confirmed so it's prolly a moot point.

As I was thumbing through the 700 pages or so of Robert's Court of Appeals hearing transcripts, I remember thinking to myself, "you know, I shouldn't be taking the easy road on this." I should have realized that the man's record has nothing to do with this fight, my research is just silliness, and deep down I really just hate everybody that Bush likes.

Thank you for setting me straight.

/snark

YW... any time

We agree on that. He'll certainly be confirmed.

Maybe, but it still won't hurt to contact your state's US Senators:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/