SCOTUS: Roberts

Notes on the new Supreme Court nominee.

Posted by David Roberts at 6:31 PM on 19 Jul 2005

Ha. Well, that whole post was sure pointless.

Bush has nominated John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. More later.

Update [2005-7-19 22:18:50 by Dave Roberts]: Well, I've read around a bit, and there doesn't seem to be much exciting to say about Roberts. He is by all accounts an extremely good lawyer, intelligent and thoughtful. He's known for his level, collegial temperament and ability to find consensus. Ideologically, he's extremely conservative, in the Scalia and Thomas mold, but not doctrinaire. His confirmation is inevitable, and while I'm sure Dems will kick up a little dust, they won't go to the mat over this guy. Says law school professor Robert Gordon:

All the indications are that he will become another vote to expand presidential power in national-security affairs, to limit the federal government's authority to regulate business and the environment and protect civil rights, to make it harder for women, minorities, labor and the disabled to pursue practical remedies in the courts, and to favor a larger role for religion in public life and as object of public subsidy. He is most likely to do this incrementally, case-by-case, rather than by sweeping new doctrines.

On the right, they seem not thrilled but certainly not disappointed. For a range of conservative opinion, visit redstate.org, the best conservative blog going.

For story: SCOTUS: Roberts
3 Comments | Post a Comment

Wedge issues and Rovian "strategery".

http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/7/21/1058047.html

Oppose Roberts because a woman ought to get this appointment, not on a microscopic examination of his politics.

Rove wants us to go ballistic on this one. Don't do it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 5:59 AM on 21 Jul 2005

Bush's choices

Does it seem to anyone else that the Prez tries to do everything in his power to push his ultra-conservative agenda? I know that is his right, but it seems to me that rather than trying to be conciliatory and choosing nominees that are conservatives and yet be acceptable to the other side, he chooses nominees that are the least acceptable to the "opposition" (be it women, enviros, pro-choicers, etc.). He seems to be thumbing his nose at those of us who disagree with him and saying, "nah, nah, look what I'm doing and you can't stop me". It seems to me that the President of the United States should be working to unify the whole country, not just working to force the Republican platform.

by mjrecycler at 7:18 AM on 21 Jul 2005

roberts stinks

Any environmentalist who doesn't understand how dangerous Roberts is needs to wake up. His snide comments about "hapless toads" came in a decision that threatens the foundation of federal environmental laws. He shares Justice Scalia's constipated reading of the Commerce Clause power, and could undermine federal authority to regulate at all. He may also share Scalia's views on ennvironmentalists' standing to sue at all. He is dangerous and needs to be rejected.

by davedenali at 7:36 AM on 26 Jul 2005
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.