Naming Rehnquist's former SCOTUS clerk to the SCOTUS to join Rehnquist himself...must have added a year of life into Rehnquist's account.
Posted on 07/19/2005 7:15:35 PM PDT by Checkers
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Posted at 5:45 PM, Pacific
John Roberts: A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.
Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here's his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.
Full disclosure: Judge Roberts and I were colleagues in the White House Counsel's Office in 1985/1986. A colleague of his from his Hogan & Hartson days, Dan Poneman, was a guest on the program earlier and a transcript of that conversation will be posted at Radioblogger.com. Poneman is a center-left specialist on national security issues, having served both the first President Bush and President Clinton on the NSC. Poneman's enthusiasm for the Roberts nomination will be mirrored across official Washington which will have a very hard time summoning any energy to smear as well regarded and liked man as Judge Roberts.
It may be too much to hope for, but it is possible that Senate Democrats will not try to destroy Roberts because they will realize they can't. The left's hard core will not be happy, but those Gang of 14 Dems must know that Roberts presents no vulnerabilities at all, much less those that rise to the level of "extraordianry circumstances."
One more note. Judge Roberts has been the subject of at least five "full field" FBI bakground investigations. He's also been a target of the left wing smear machine but that effort came up empty and Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit even before the Senate Democrats abandoned the filibuster. Ralph Neas has got the machine running, but it isn't going to work because there are far too many people who know John and understand how deeply unfair these attacks are and who will resist the smears, including, I think, many partisan Democrats.
UPDATE: Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer shows his hand:
"There's no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperment and demeanor. But his actual judicial record is limited to only two years on the D.C. Circuit Couirt. Fot the rest of his career he has been arguiong cases as an able lawyer for others leaving many of his personal views unknown. For these reasons it is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly honestly and fully in the coming months. His views will affet a generation of Americans and it is his obligatio during the nomination process to let the American people know those views. The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy. I voted against Judge Roberts or the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions as fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. For instance, when I asked himn a question that others have answered --to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused."
As a caller pointed out, Judge Roberts should answer with Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu.
Schumer is telegraphing the strategy of the hard-left Democratic Senaors: To ask question after question which a nominees will not and should not answer, and then to oppose confirmation on the basis of these refusals. That will not fly with the few not-hard left Democratic senators who are left, and certainly not with those up for re-election. If a filibuster is attempted, the constitutional option will not be used because it will not be needed.
Two more notes:
Will Evan Bayh oppose a Hoosier? Not likely.
And did the Chief Justice delay his retirement to welcome a protege to the court. Has a sitting justice ever welcomed a former clerk to the court?
a home run, my ass... try GRAND SLAM!!!
fair enough
I think he was confirmed to the court he's on now unanimously. That shoudl give conservatives pause about how reliable he is.
I'd prefer he answer Roe, Lawrence and Kelo.
With this nomination, President Bush has given to the left-wing moonbats all of the rope with which they will use to hang themselves. Go for it Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin. I'll just sit back and laugh.
Bush made a shrewd choice, and I think he'll be confirmed with less fuss than many predicted.
Chuckie Schumer claims to have voted against him.
*****make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here's his bio,*****
Well Hugh about 40 Senators who are extreme idealogues:
Wait make that idiots:
are about to fire up on Judge Roberts tomorrow morning. You can bet the farm Harry Reid, Fat Ted, and Nancy of the pulled tight face , have their staffs working on the politics of personal destruction all night tonight.
Naming Rehnquist's former SCOTUS clerk to the SCOTUS to join Rehnquist himself...must have added a year of life into Rehnquist's account.
Vintage Chuckie. Vintage adolescent liberalism: "You have to prove your case to me or it doesn't count and oh, by the way, nothing you can say will be sufficient." Take a hike, Chuck.
BIOGRAPHY OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS -- a conservative for the USSC
Newsrooms & Senate Staffers Pull Data on John Roberts
Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts
Roberts Likely to Face Abortion Questions
MoveOn Sees Conspiracy in Roberts Timing
John Kerry on Roberts Nomination
Reactions to the Supreme Court Nomination of John G. Roberts
FREEP THIS POLL! JOHN ROBERTS STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY ON NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
John Roberts: A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.[Jugh Hewitt]
He just can't do it. It would be a violation of legal ethics as those type cases will come up again before him.
This tidbit of information doesn't bother me. Once the Democrats know that he's going to have a vote, it's often not in their favor to vote against him. Those in swing states have to be especially careful not to appear to be voting against every presidential nominee.
Yeah, I know. :-}
In the Judiciary Committee. For the Confirmation vote they didn't bother with a roll call.
Unworthy until proven worthy.
Based on previous writings and rulings I think he'll be right about all three of those.
Fantastic pick! Bush did not let us down! Grand slam! (Great head fake today by Laura, et al.)
And Scalia was confirmed 98-0... That must mean he is a closet liberal, just waiting to screw us over! [/sarcasm]
Get a life, you moron! I am so tired of all of you who have to go through life just waiting for something bad to happen!
Face it: the president you love to hate did exactly what he said he would do from the beginning - nominated a strong, conservative constitutionalist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. So go peddle your Bush-hating somewhere else; I am fed up!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.