In the Agora: Justice John Roberts?

« From "Hey Buuuuuddy!" to Reality Winner? | Main | Mea Culpa »

July 19, 2005

Justice John Roberts?

Despite some last minute speculation that our own Josh Claybourn was on the short list, President Bush nominated John Roberts of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The only thing in Bush's nomination speech that grated on me was when he said that Roberts would "not legislate from the bench." I'd take great delight in asking Bush to explain the precise difference between "legislating from the bench" and "judging from the bench" and watching him babble incoherently. The same delight I took in watching Harry Reid babble like an idiot when he was challenged to give an example of a Clarence Thomas decision that was "embarrassing to the court." Both are just perfect examples of why, despite horrible decisions like Raich and Kelo, I have far more faith in the judiciary - where men and women of actual intellect and education reside - than in the elected branches, which seem to be inhabited primarily by halfwits mindlessly repeating empty catchphrases.

Pro-choice groups will undoubtely be focusing on briefs written by Roberts when he worked in the DOJ in two abortion cases where he took a hard line against Roe v Wade during the Reagan and first Bush administrations, but that doesn't really indicate anything. As a deputy solicitor general, his job was to represent the position of the President, not give his own independent analysis. Roberts is widely considered a brilliant legal mind, which is not a term I toss around lightly. And there's really nothing in his record to prompt any particular opposition other than someone's objections to conservative judges in general.

Update: Interesting to see the decision that three major networks made in terms of who would analyze the pick. Fox News had their normal political pundits on - Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke and Bill Kristol; CNN had two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one from each party; only MSNBC, of the ones I watched immediately after the announcement, had legal scholars on - Jonathan Turley and Lawrence Tribe. Tribe was quite conciliatory toward Roberts, calling him brilliant, decent and a man of integrity. He did, however, bring up the one decision that really concerns me, which was Roberts' opinion in the Hamdi case where he argued for giving the President virtually unchecked authority in terms of treating American citizens as prisoners of war. That's the one thing I've read from Roberts that really raises a red flag for me, but I haven't read the full decision.

Posted by at July 19, 2005 09:11 PM

Comments

Double posting here, but since this comment seems more appropriate in this topic, I'll go ahead and do it:

He is 50 years old and has just over 2 years of judicial experience, having been appointed to the D.C. Ct. of Appeals in June 2003. He's worked for Rehnquist, and the Reagan and Bush I Departments of Justice. Lots of experience practicing before the US Supreme Court.

A good choice politically, I guess. Lots of decent credentials but not a lot of published opinions. He can blow off the positions taken in his briefs as being written for the client and not being reflective, necessarily, of his own personal opinions.

Wikipedia write up.

Free Congress Foundation write up.

Solid Republican loyalty credentials. Ambiguous social conservative credentials. Should be interesting.

Posted by: Doug at July 19, 2005 09:38 PM | permalink

You know, I just want a justice whose decisions aren't of the, "But the Europeans will call us rubes and make fun of us if we keep this law on the books" school of jurisprudence. That's all.

Posted by: Andrew Reeves at July 20, 2005 10:56 AM | permalink

July 19, 2005

Justice John Roberts?

Comments

Post a comment