Posted on 07/20/2005 11:51:04 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
WASHINGTON - Environmentalists didn't like John G. Roberts' opinion on protecting California toads. And some Gulf War veterans felt he was unfair to prisoners of war mistreated by Saddam Hussein's regime.
But on balance, critics were finding it difficult Wednesday to muster a strong attack on the Supreme Court nominee based on his brief record as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Roberts will be called on to defend legal briefs he wrote while serving as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush White House, including one that argued that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also will be held accountable for gaps in his opinions and briefs that leave his views unanswered, legal experts said.
For opponents who scoured Roberts' record, the pickings were slim, legal experts said.
"It is very hard to go after someone for their judicial philosophy when they haven't written that many opinions," said Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.
Roberts was confirmed to the appellate court by a voice vote in the Senate in May 2003. Few of his rulings since then have been controversial.
Guantanamo Bay ruling Among the decisions Roberts made during his short time on the bench that will be scrutinized is one he made Friday when he was part of a 3-0 ruling that cleared the way for the Pentagon to resume military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. That decision overturned a lower court ruling and established that the 1949 Geneva Conventions governing prisoners of war do not apply to al-Qaida members.
Critics also will note that Roberts sided with the Bush administration in a case that ultimately led to Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force records remaining sealed.
Beyond that, there is Roberts' 2003 toad opinion, in which he said the federal government went too far in using the Endangered Species Act to protect the arroyo toad in California. Roberts agreed with developers that wildlife regulations were applied unconstitutionally in the case. Environmental groups were not happy.
Gulf War and a french fry
Some Gulf War prisoners who were abused by Saddam's military did not agree with Roberts last June when he held that they were not entitled to some of the billions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets as compensation. The Bush administration said the money belonged to the new Iraqi government. Roberts joined judicial colleagues who overturned a $1 billion damage award from a lower court.
Opponents looking for a case that will resonate with average Americans also will likely bring up Roberts' french fry decision.
That was an opinion Roberts wrote in October upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single fry in a Metro station in Washington. Experts predicted senators opposing Roberts would use the case in an attempt to show the judge failed to use common sense to remedy excessive law enforcement.
"Those opposed to John will try to make a big deal out of the french fry case," said George Terwilliger, a former top Justice Department official who worked closely with Roberts. "If you read the opinion, I think it is a good example of his judicial philosophy. He expressed sympathy for the girl but said: 'The law is the law.' "
But opponents seemed to be grasping at air in trying to find issues where Roberts might be vulnerable.
No direct criticism The liberal group People for the American Way, which had vowed to aggressively contest any nominee it considered too conservative, issued a multipage document ripping high court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, then asked: "What if Roberts is the Scalia-Thomas justice demanded by the right?"
"These groups will make fools of themselves if they try to demonize John. He is not an ideologue," said former colleague Terwilliger.
The largest repository of potential material to be used against Roberts may be the arguments he made during 39 appearances before the Supreme Court as deputy solicitor general for the first Bush administration and as private attorney.
During one hearing he said, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Abortion rights groups said that answer won't be good enough during the hearings.
michael.hedges@chron.com
Roberts' opinion is a good example of conservative jurisprudence. He begins by noting that "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was "apprehended" have since been changed. Nevertheless, the controlling law was clear, and the court was not authorized to second-guess the wisdom of the District's policies: "The question before us," Roberts wrote, "is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution." One basic difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives understand that there are any number of ideas that may be stupid, but are not unconstitutional. As Roberts wrote: "Rational basis review does not authorize the judiciary to sit as a superlegislature."
The Hedgepeth case may tug at certain heartstrings, but it plainly was decided correctly. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision, so the conclusion was unanimous. It's hard to paint a judge who is part of a unanimous consensus as "out of the mainstream."............*** http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011085.php
They're obviously taking a cue from Leaky Leahy and Schmuck Chumer.
WINNING RÉSUMÉ Roberts satisfies Bush's conservative base without provoking rabid opposition
Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic
Also as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Roberts co-authored the government’s amicus brief in a private suit brought against Operation Rescue by an abortion clinic it had targeted.14 The brief argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection. Roberts took this position in spite of Operation Rescue’s admission that its goal was to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to shut down the clinic during its protests. Although the government’s brief acknowledged that only women could become pregnant, it argued that conspiring to prevent people from seeking constitutionally-protected abortions did not constitute gender discrimination. It asserted that, at worst, Operation Rescue was discriminating against pregnant people, not women.
The brief in Bray also took the additional step of pointing out that the Supreme Court had not previously decided whether women were protected from private conspiracies to violate their equal protection rights, under the relevant civil rights statute,and urged the Court not to reach a decision on this question, rather than arguing that the Court should definitively state that women should be afforded protection by the statute, as was within the Court’s power in this case.
The Supreme Court accepted Roberts’ argument in a 5-1-3 decision, with Justices O’Connor (the justice whose seat he is being nominated for), Stevens, and Blackmun dissenting. However, Justice Souter, while jopining the majority, disdainfully rejected Roberts’ arguments, writing that:
It is also obvious that petitioners' conduct was motivated "at least in part" by the invidious belief that individual women are not capable of deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy, or that they should not be allowed to act on such a decision. Petitioners' blanket refusal to allow any women access to an abortion clinic overrides the individual class member's choice, no matter whether she is the victim of rape or incest, whether the abortion may be necessary to save her life, or even whether she is merely seeking advice or information about her options. Petitioners' conduct is designed to deny every woman the opportunity to exercise a constitutional right that only women possess. Petitioners' conspiracy, which combines massive defiance of the law with violent obstruction of the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens, represents a paradigm of the kind of conduct that the statute was intended to cover.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
And Ann Coulter and FR's moonbat UNAPPEASEABLES.
It sure does..
Another instance of brilliant strategery from President Bush.
Now we have to pray Roberts doesn't turn into another Souter.
Prayer is always good.
=^)
When was the last time Ann got it wrong?
When was the last time a washington republican let you down?
That's what the Dems get for stalling Roberts' confirmation to the appellate court for two years.
Roberts is no Souter. GW Bush is not like his father. GHW Bush surrounded himself by and listened to RINOs who convinced him Souter was a good pick. GW Bush advisors are solid conservatives. Roberts has a lifetime history of fighting for conservative causes and serving people like Reagan, Bush and Rhinquist. Roberts is a devote Catholic, married to pro-life activist. Roberts donates money exclusively to the GOP party. Souter was a government hack, north easterner elitist. If Souter was nominated in the age of the web, Souter would have been exposed. As it was, the few people who had info that Souter was pro-abortion were not able to get the message out. Those days are gone.
Roberts is no Souter. GW Bush is not like his father. GHW Bush surrounded himself by and listened to RINOs who convinced him Souter was a good pick. GW Bush advisors are solid conservatives. Roberts has a lifetime history of fighting for conservative causes and serving people like Reagan, Bush and Rhinquist. Roberts is a devote Catholic, married to pro-life activist. Roberts donates money exclusively to the GOP party. Souter was a government hack, north easterner elitist. If Souter was nominated in the age of the web, Souter would have been exposed. As it was, the few people who had info that Souter was pro-abortion were not able to get the message out. Those days are gone.
Be careful. Ann is pretty and witty and sharp as a tack but no one is infallible.
Ann makes her living being a political celebrity. I think she's turning the spotlight on herself. You know she'll be invited to be on all the shows.
Bump!
I am full up to here with the Democrats.
Ever since the election of 2000, the predictable aim of the dems has been to stop every Republican initiative. If they cannot stop it, they will delay it. If neither of those work, they will water it down.
It doesn't matter WHAT the issue is, the democrats are utterly transparent: Whatever a Republican does, is wrong.
Not even once have democrats been cooperative. Every move by the right is accompanied by a chorus of screeching leftists attacking the move, the movers and their motives. I'm sick of it.
It's time--it's WAY past time, that every time dems get obstructionist--to call them on that FIRST. To point out that their tactics are well known.
It's delay, deny, distort, deceive, denigrate and destroy. That's the entire platform of the Democrat party. A conservative democrat like Zell Miller is so rare as to be a zoo animal or collector's item. There is no such thing as a gentleman on the democrat side.
If they have any principals at all, they surrender them for political expediency, the way Lieberman did his pro-life principals for the chance to be Al Gore's vice president. AL GORE'S VICE PRESIDENT? It would be more honorable to be dogcatcher in Booger County, and look better on a resume.
I don't think any of these people actually like each other, the ones on the left. I don't think they enjoy each others' company, or relax and have fun. It just doesn't seem to be a pleasant thing, to be a democrat--unless your idea of fun is jumping on the bed in the Lincoln bedroom, or having that sick old murderous homosexual Arafat over for dinner a couple hundred times.
Democrats are just bizarre. Hand them a qualified Supreme Court nominee, and the first thing they do is get out the microscope and parse every word they can that the nominee or any of his friends ever wrote, uttered or thought.
They're just bizarre. They're tiring. They're unpleasant. They're dirty, smelly, and they side with pedophiles and terrorists against the very people who elected them.
The other day, I thanked a soldier for his service to our country. A democrat acquaintance with me said, a minute later, "You know, Judy, not everyone feels the way you do." He looked like he felt contaminated by my gratitude, as if he were afraid someone would mistake him for a Republican. I said, "Fine, go tell him you disagree--take a stand." He declined.
I'm so sick and tired of these people. If they can't prevent Roberts from being confirmed, they'll make it as inconvenient, as difficult, as embarrassing, and as lengthy a process as they can.
I wish they'd surprise me and just confirm the guy in the next week or so, but that's not going to happen. The liberals are SOOOOOO predictable.
Even thinking about them is tiresome, dirty work. I think I'll go have a nice shower and read something inspirational.
Sweet justice.
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.