← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Blond Knight
Thread ID: 20017 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-09-05
2005-09-05 12:35 | User Profile
It is being reported that President Clouseau is nominating Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to succeed the late Chief Justice Rehnquist.
2005-09-05 16:16 | User Profile
Look for Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy to do his usual antics to prevent a smooth process.
2005-09-05 16:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE] Look for Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy to do his usual antics to prevent a smooth process.[/QUOTE]
No doubt, and in a supporting role look for Jesse (Swingin' Dick) Jackson and Al (Don't be a cunfusin' me wit da trute) Sharpton to join Breaststroke Teddy in an anti Roberts hatefest.
2005-09-05 16:54 | User Profile
I'd give a good sum to hear a nominee being grilled by Teddy turn and retort "Well, that may be true Senator, but I have never walked off from the scene of a crime and left my female companion unconcious and ultimately dead at the hands of my own doing."
However, still don't really know what to think about Roberts.
2005-09-05 21:04 | User Profile
Ann Coulter has her doubts.
[url=http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=67]Fool Me Eight Times, Shame On Me[/url]
Of course it's possible that Roberts will buck history — all known human history when it comes to the Supreme Court — and be another Scalia or Thomas. (And we'll hear this news while attending a World Series game between the Cubs and, oh, say ... the Detroit Tigers.)
That will not retrospectively alter the fact that Bush and all the other Zarathustra Republicans cheering for Roberts haven't the first idea what kind of justice Roberts will be right now. They are telling us their hopes and dreams.
I share their hopes and dreams! I also hope it doesn't rain in August. I'm not throwing out all my umbrellas, and I won't be "proved wrong" in that decision even if the rain never comes. This is a fact: Right now, we don't know.
Republicans are desperately trying to convince themselves that Roberts will be different because they want to believe Bush wouldn't let us down on the Supreme Court. Somewhere in America a woman is desperately trying to convince herself that her husband won't hit her again because he told her "things are going to be different this time." (And yes, that woman's name is Whitney Houston.)
Bush said "Trust me," and Republicans trust him. It shouldn't be difficult for conservatives to convince themselves that Roberts is our man. They've had practice convincing themselves of the same thing with Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.
2005-09-06 01:12 | User Profile
Scalia or Thomas should have been elevated to chief. This is BS.
2005-09-06 01:18 | User Profile
Scalia ... period!
2005-09-06 02:20 | User Profile
Annie has a point ââ¬â nobody knows what Robertsââ¬â¢s going to do once robed -- itââ¬â¢s all a game of chance.
Once thing that struck me while watching his nomination acceptance is that he seemed almost Clintonesque in his delivery before the press. Sure he lacks the Southern twang and is probably not on par when it comes to charming the ladies, but the golly ââ¬ÅI still get goose bumps when climbing those stepsââ¬Â (for the +30th time, no less), accompanied by a sparkle in the eye and the periodic hiding of the lower lip was pure Bubba.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, for thatââ¬â¢s how the game is played and it takes an Augustus to admit as much. Still, this guy Roberts must be well above the curve. Intelligent and sophisticated enough to pass muster with the hidden powers that be and sufficiently down to Earth to get an enthusiastic yes from the nominal CnC. Another breakfast later and he bags the CJ job.
Good thing heââ¬â¢s a Catholic in good standing, otherwise one might not know what to thing.
[QUOTE]Scalia or Thomas should have been elevated to chief. [/QUOTE] Yah, it must suck to get passed over for a Rookie.
2005-09-06 02:50 | User Profile
God help us if Bush now turns and nominates Alberto Gonzales to fill O'Connor's spot (Roberts is now replacing Rehnquist). There is so much jockeying between the two parties to capture this hispanic vote that I could see him tapping Gonzales. This would be a monumental mistake. Who knows maybe he'll even resurect Estrada from the past (at least he's got a record) and put an immigrant on the Court (whoa).
Bush has consistently nominated people to positions who have demonstrated that they will be loyal to ... him and his ideals. Therefore, a Gonzales nomination wouldn't surprise me; and pass up on someone who would be a strong, predictable conservative such as Luttig from the 4th.
... and, yes, I agree that Scalia should have been elevated ... it is widely known that all justices prefer Scalia's open discussions (hell, try and convince the lunatics anyway) to Rehenquist's efficient yet no-dialouge approach (possibly emmulated by Roberts, a former Rehnquist clerk).
2005-09-07 15:27 | User Profile
washingtonpost.com Bush Pledges Wide Search for Court Seat Race, Sex and Hurricane Among Factors as President Seeks a Second Nominee
By Peter Baker and Jo Becker Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, September 7, 2005; A09
President Bush vowed yesterday to "take a good, long look" at a "wide open" list of candidates before deciding whom to nominate for a second open seat on the Supreme Court, as both sides girded for twin confirmation battles and recalibrated strategies after the dizzying events of recent days.
The casket of the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was laid in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, borne by a cast of pallbearers that included his former clerk and would-be successor, John G. Roberts Jr. Some influential Democrats signaled that Roberts's ascension increased their eagerness to press him on his record -- particularly on civil rights, which they said has taken on new salience in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished died," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in an interview . The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or for "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress."
Bush, who tapped Roberts on Monday to replace Rehnquist, suggested that he will take his time finding a new candidate for the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, which was originally supposed to go to the appellate judge. Aides said they expect no announcement this week as Washington focuses on the damage wrought by Hurricane Kristina.
At the same time, Bush playfully hinted he could choose his friend Alberto R. Gonzales, a prospect that reignited consternation among conservative groups skeptical of the attorney general's politics.
"The list is wide open, which should create some good speculation here in Washington," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, generating laughter. With a sly look, he added: "And make sure you notice when I said that, I looked right at Al Gonzales, who can really create speculation."
Whether or not the president actually intends to nominate Gonzales, who would be the first Hispanic on the court, that lighthearted remark crystallized the renewed battle within the Bush camp over the selection of an associate justice -- a virtual replay of the fight that preceded Roberts's original nomination in July, pitting the Republican right against the White House.
At the same time, having already chosen a white man for the high court, Bush came under pressure from within his party to make diversity a priority. Republican Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.) and John Cornyn (Tex.) all advised the president to consider a woman or a member of a minority. O'Connor and first lady Laura Bush have both previously stated a preference for a second woman on the bench as well, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice smiled broadly yesterday when Bush was asked whether he would name a female nominee.
With O'Connor's pending departure, the court would be left with one woman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and one minority, Clarence Thomas. "Two women are, I think, a minimum," Specter said, though he added he does not favor a quota.
Complicating the picture is the political aftermath of Katrina, which analysts say has left Bush weakened amid recriminations over a slow, ineffectual initial response. Some analysts speculated that Bush might avoid a provocative conservative in favor of a less ideologically pure nominee, possibly Gonzales. But White House advisers scoffed at the notion, suggesting that fundamentally misunderstands Bush's nature.
Conservatives lobbied against shifting course because of Katrina. "The court is a long-term thing," said William Kristol, the influential editor of the Weekly Standard. "It's crazy to mess up your long-term legacy to possibly help him with a short-term PR problem. I think Gonzales would be a disaster."
Some Republican strategists reason that the hurricane may actually work in their favor in that the public has no appetite for a fiery, partisan battle over the Supreme Court. "People are in no mood for a circus," said a senior administration official who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the situation. "The country is dealing with a terrible tragedy. The American people want a dignified process."
Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, yesterday rescheduled hearings originally slated for today until Monday. Preparing for a showdown, some Democrats mapped plans to link Roberts's past opposition to affirmative action and other civil rights measures to the unfolding scenes of mostly poor African Americans hit hardest by the hurricane.
Democrats will make that argument in part through their witness list, which includes Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader in the 1960s civil rights movement who plans to note that courts historically have led the way in guaranteeing rights for the disenfranchised. "New Orleans is just a symbol," he said in an interview. "We are still a nation divided by race and class, and I don't see [Roberts] being an advocate for those who were left out and left behind."
Democrats used the delay in the Roberts hearings to renew their request for documents related to his service as principal deputy solicitor general under President George H.W. Bush, but Specter rejected the appeal. The government has released tens of thousands of pages of memos and papers from Roberts's early service in the Reagan administration while refusing to turn over those from the solicitor general's office on the grounds of preserving confidential deliberations.
On other matters, Democrats sent mixed messages as party leaders seemed to search for a consensus strategy. Some said Roberts should be held to a higher scrutiny because of the influence of a chief justice. "Look at [Earl] Warren and Rehnquist," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), referring to two long-serving chiefs credited with moving the court to the left and right, respectively.
But other Democrats said the switch of Roberts to replace Rehnquist rather than O'Connor actually made his confirmation less significant because now it would be trading one conservative for another. Unlike Rehnquist, O'Connor was a decisive vote in many cases. "She has been the swing vote on so many of the freedoms" important to Americans, said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
In a similar vein, Democrats also split on whether Bush should signal his choice for O'Connor's seat before the Senate votes on Roberts. Shortly after Bush picked Roberts for chief, Kennedy said the president should disclose his proposed replacement for O'Connor expeditiously. But Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) urged Bush not to rush. "It would seem to me the White House may want to take it a little more slowly," Reid told reporters.
Bush appeared in no rush. "I'll take a good, long look at who should replace Justice O'Connor," he said. Bush noted that he spoke with O'Connor on Monday to inform her that Roberts would be submitted for Rehnquist's seat instead of hers and to remind her that she had agreed to remain on the court until her successor is confirmed. "Her first reaction was that she better get back to doing her homework," he said.
Having gone through a selection process just two months ago, Bush has a good sense of the universe of candidates, who besides Gonzales appear to include former deputy attorney general Larry D. Thompson and a plethora of appeals court judges, including J. Michael Luttig, Edith Hollan Jones and Priscilla R. Owen. Bush has not scheduled any more candidate interviews, nor is he holding any regular meetings with aides, instead discussing the choice on a more ad hoc basis by calling advisers when he has a thought or question, officials said.
"He's got his mind organized around a short, decent list of people," said one senior official close to the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the process. "But he's not close-minded about this at this point."
As much as anything, timing may be the open question. Bush is unlikely to announce the next nomination in the midst of next week's hearings on Roberts, but the president's advisers are debating whether it would be better to go ahead after the hearings or to wait until after a final floor vote, now scheduled for the week of Sept. 26.
Even if O'Connor is sitting on the court when its next term opens Oct. 3, her presence may not matter much. If she is not still there when decisions are written and issued months later, her vote would not count. In instances when that would leave a 4 to 4 tie, the cases might have to be reargued for her successor's benefit.
"The president ought to act expeditiously simply to fill the slot as quickly as possible," said Todd F. Gaziano, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation and former Jones clerk.
Others argue that even with two appointments, Bush needs another to effect lasting change. "While this weekend was filled with dramatic events, they won't transform the court in the way people on both sides hope or fear," said M. Edward Whelan III, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. "Real transformation requires replacing someone on the left with a proponent of judicial restraint."
Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.
2005-09-07 16:38 | User Profile
I didn't think Roberts was going to be confirmed when Rehnquist was alive, let alone now.
For Dems who've not just had their asses whupped by Bush...but those who've caved in and been complicit with his policies for fear of being Coultered by the neocons in their ascendant hour...the confirmation hearings will be payback. For centrists and the Tancredo/Paul Right, they will be a last chance to put reins on a reckless Administration, answerable to no one, before it can put its stamp on the next 20 years.
I don't think the hearings will have anything to do with Roberts per se; but the Supreme Court is the ultimate 'answerable-to-no-one' gig attainable in this country, and I think half the Congress wants to punish Bush while the other half is beginning to realize that there's not going to be any bounce, or coattail effect, in rubberstamping this particular lame duck's laundry-list.
And frankly, given Bush's other impulse-shopper first choices, I welcome a protracted battle. The Supreme Court desperately needs accountability, not stacking.
2005-09-07 17:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=]
"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished died," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in an interview . The question for Roberts, he said, is whether he stands for "a fairer, more just nation" or for "narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress."
[/QUOTE]
Kennedy's "progress" = America's destruction
Too bad that the only folks in DC who will be asking the "tough" questions are those who will be asking the wrong questions.
2005-09-07 18:30 | User Profile
Bush is as honest about Robert's conservative qualities as Bush was about Saddam's WMD programs.
2005-09-07 18:37 | User Profile
"narrow, stingy interpretations of the law to frustrate progress." That is quite a euphemism, even for Teddy Kennedy. Could his political opponents not charge him with the same thing, since he opposes torture of suspected terrorists? Is he not 'frustrating progress' in the War on Terror with his 'narrow, stingy interpretation of the law'? What a bloated idiot.