A Look at Bush’s Nominee
Well, we all know that Sandra Day O’Connor retired, and her absence will leave a gaping black hole in the judicial world. As of today, July 19, 2005, President George W. Bush has selected a nominee for the Supreme Court to fill O’Connor’s place.
Lets take a look at this new judge who will most likely take over in O’Connor’s footsteps.
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 Acting Solicitor General, Roberts was the government’s lead counsel before the Supreme Court in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, a 1990 case brought by citizens seeking to enforce environmental protections in response to the Bush’s move to open 4,500 acres of public land to mining activity. Plaintiffs asserted that they would be injured by the government’s decision to open the land to mining, citing recreational activities in which they had engaged and planned to engage in the future in that area.
Despite express statutory authorization for such suits, however, Roberts argued that plaintiffs, members of the National Wildlife Federation, had no right to file the claims, because they had not presented sufficient proof of the impact of the government’s actions on them to give them standing. He asserted that the D.C. Circuit, which had granted standing, had “presume[ed] facts that the parties did not, and perhaps cannot - allege on their own.” The Supreme Court adopted Roberts’ argument, tightening standing requirements for federal cases in one of a line of cases making it harder for plaintiffs to challenge governmental actions detrimental to the environment. Roberts voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to “consider alternative grounds” for protecting the toad that are “more consistent with Supreme Court precedent.” (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)
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.
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.
Oh, and the next one will be every ones favorite, Abortion.
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.
OK. that’s all the Info I could find on this guy, I’m sure more will pop up soon, but that’s irrelevant at this point. And yes, to all those reading, I copied and pasted the above information from the websites referenced at the bottom of this post. Now, on to an opinion. This guy is perfect fitting Image of the Bush Administration. He has a terrible record on the environment, hates abortion, and supports religion in schools.
Very strong conservative, who would put the Supreme Court now at a perfect partisan Balance, 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and one swing vote. which will make the future of abortion very interesting.
Mr. Jack
_________________________________________________________________
References For This Post
1. air.fjc.gov “Roberts, John G. Jr. ” 19 July 2005,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4642275.stm
2. independentjudiciary.com, “John Roberts ” 19 july 2005
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5
3. dkosopedia.com “John G. Roberts Jr” 19 July 2005,
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
Lefty Says: July 22nd, 2005 at 1:58 am
I think that the best approach to the Roberts nomination is to say “OK. Roberts will do just fine. Now let’s get back to Rove and Libby.” Bloomberg news has an interesting story coming out sometime tonight after midnight which says that Rove and Libby both gave false testimony to the grand jury. In addition to violating their federal confidentiality agreements (a condition of federal employment. Legally they can’t even say “Yeah, I heard that too” according to the confidentiality agreements that they signed when they joined the administration), Rove and Libby (and perhaps other administration officials) are now under investigation for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Mr. Jack Says: July 22nd, 2005 at 6:40 am
It’s obvious that Bush is trying to start a controversy over the judicial nomination in order to draw attention away from the rove case.
Mr. Jack Says: July 24th, 2005 at 7:51 am
Kellerdbk my objective in this article was not to offer an opinion, but simply state what little information I could find on President Bush’s Nominee, and offer people a chance to make up their own mind, if my information seemed bias in anyway, it’s because I could find no other record of Mr. Roberts that would state it in a way of your liking. If you’ll notice, I posted this shortly after president Bush announced his nomination, therefore I had not formed an objective opinion, and even if I had, It’s of no importance and therefore would waste of my time, and every one else’s time who would read that opinion if I had posted it.
As for your childish remarks about my education, I happen to major in political science and philosophy, an area you yourself should try studying some time.
Suzanne Says: July 28th, 2005 at 9:15 am
I agree with you Mr Jack so far good President Bush, your nominee’s are you nice perfect puppets.
You are not bias Mr Jack we all know why this Mr Roberts, (oh come on a better name at least) the perfect white, extreamly white guy. Perfect home perfect family and does exactly as insturcted.
I decided I get the best new on what is his name, the real neat guy at 12:00, Yeah, him.
Actually there is more truth to his humor than there is in our Newspapers,
Suzanne
Mr. Jack Says: July 30th, 2005 at 7:27 am
Actually, I think Mr. Roberts is exactly what the Supreme Court needs, another conservative. After the recent rulings on property rights, it’s clear that the court needs a balance, and that’s exactly what it’ll have, 9 judges, 4 of which are liberal, 4 of which are conservative, and one independent “swing vote” While I would rather replace that swing vote with O’Connor seeing as she’s a much more logical swing vote, it should make for an interesting future.
Margaret Says: August 3rd, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Mr. Jack ……you should try saying ” Mr. Roberts will do just fine”…say it ..I’m sure you’ll learn how to like it. He is exactly what we need.
Mr. Jack Says: August 5th, 2005 at 6:38 am
Well Margaret if you could read, you’ll see that I did say it. I support Mr. Roberts 100%; he will offer a more complete balance to the court.
Mr. Jack Says: August 6th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
Despite what you may think, I care little about the philosophies of liberalism and conservatives, left wing or right wing, democrat or republican. Political Balance is my primary concern, because each side needs the other to form a functional, stable democracy.
Lefty Says: August 8th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
The Iraqi constitutional committee is just starting to work on the hard part of their consititution and seem to be stuck. I just read the following quote and thought it was a brilliant solution.
“They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it’s worked for over 200 years and we’re not using it anymore.”
Anna Says: August 11th, 2005 at 2:52 am
I’m getting the feeling that the administrator of this site has kicked the bucket or found himself arrested under the Patriot Act and locked up in Gitmo or something.
Paul Says: August 12th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Hey Suzanne, what exactly is wrong with the guy coming from a “perfect family”? I doubt it is perfect but that was pretty catty. But hey, that has never stopped you before.
Joy Says: August 17th, 2005 at 6:00 am
In reference to #10,I’ll just be tacky enough to say that if he’s locked up in Gitmo, at least he’ll get fed well enough to gain weight and recieve health care (at no expense to himself) more often than the average American male.
Anna Says: August 18th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
in reference to #12. Or perhaps he is being waterboarded (i.e., drowned and resuscitate repeatedly). That is an approved interview technique at Gitmo. Imagine the quality of information you get from a person when you have drowned them several times.
Joy Says: August 19th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Anna,
Where did you get that ‘information’ (aka ‘doodoo’)?
Anna Says: August 19th, 2005 at 10:32 pm
Joy,
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050711fa_fact4
As you will see in the above
In June 2004, it was revealed that the United States Department of Justice had written memos stipulating that torture was not illegal unless it was intended to cause extreme physical pain, and it was further revealed that “waterboarding” was being used on prisoners at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay. There is evidence that water boarding was recently used in Abu Ghraib and was one of the forms of torture used on those detained there.
Anna Says: August 19th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
Joy,
And since you are conservative you may appreciate this Wall Street Journal editorial on the use of waterboarding of detainees by the US. So, as you can see, I get this “doodoo” from your conservative papers too.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006122
Joy Says: August 21st, 2005 at 3:00 am
FYI-
According to WIKPEDIA…There are reportedly at least 3 types of ‘waterboarding’ - none of which include drowning and resucitating.
1. Strap someone to a board and lower them into water “until he or she believes drowning is imminent”. (Apparently those who would perform this are mindreaders)
2. Restrain someone in a chair (or otherwise), cover their face with a cloth and wet it (I’ve read ‘pouring’ and ‘dripping’…so this part’s vague)to cause a sensation of drowning.
3. Get enough water in the person’s throat (Wikpedia says ‘pour’) to cause a sensation of drowning -”being careful not to drown the victim”.
The Wall Street Journal editorial that was referred to has the following to say:
“As for al Qaeda, let us describe the most coercive interrogation technique that was ever actually authorized. It’s called “water-boarding,” and it involves strapping a detainee down, wrapping his face in a wet towel and dripping water on it to produce the sensation of drowning.
Is that “torture”? It is pushing the boundary of tolerable behavior, but we are told it is also used to train U.S. pilots in case they are shot down and captured.”
Circe Says: August 21st, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Joy,
I am not sure I understand where you are going in #17. It seems to me that if you think that waterboarding in any form is justifiable, you might want to do some soul-searching. You may come up empty.
Anna Says: August 21st, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Joy,
Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that WIKEPEDIA’s does not define waterboarding as torture? Are you not convinced that it is a method used against detainees? If these two premises are true, then the US uses torture techniques, that are offensive to all good and civilized people, against detainees. How could this be excused? It can’t be so don’t even waste your time with irrational mental gymnastics that conservative go through.
Mr. Jack Says: August 21st, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Torture is defined as Infliction of physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
Now creating a drowning affect causes pain in the lungs, which spreads to other areas of the body, so yes this is torture.
As for using it on our pilots, it’s used to help them resist Interrogation by hostile forces, because countries we fight aren’t as humane or ethical to try psychological techniques.
Joy Says: August 22nd, 2005 at 5:27 am
Circe, Anna, and Jack,
My reason for #17 was simply to clarify what was actually said about waterboarding in the references Anna had provided as opposed to her definition of it - AND THAT IS ALL.
As far as my opinion on it, do you see it in that comment? I gave bottom line, basic information only - for the specific reason of keeping my opinion out of it…and yet, somehow, it seems to lead you 3 to assume that I’m in favor of this procedure in any form. Where does that assumption come from? I guess because I didn’t add my opinion of it, it looked as if I agreed with it. I DO NOT CONDONE TORTURE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH TORTURE. TORTURE IN ANY FORM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS OUR PLACE TO TREAT OTHERS THIS WAY. Clarifying by quoting references should not be construed as condoning. I will try to remember to clearly state my opinion regarding any facts I put here so that it’s not woven into what some other information sources say.
I’m not sure if the problem is with my not having my opinion there or with you making assumptions. I’ll fix my part. Thanks.
Joy Says: August 23rd, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Did our points get lost in cyberspace? Yoo-hoo.
HELLO …oooo?
Darn! I’ve been curious as all get-out to read responses to my clarification. Well, maybe by the time all the posts show up the air will have cleared a little from the misunderstandings and we can get on with our discussions.
Joy Says: August 23rd, 2005 at 11:17 pm
I’ve created an email account especially for political discussion and to (hopefully)clear up any future misunderstandings more quickly: conservativejoy@yahoo.com