Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chief justice favored Roberts
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | September 6, 2005 | By Guy Taylor

Posted on 09/05/2005 10:54:30 PM PDT by Kay

Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was long regarded as the best Supreme Court lawyer in the nation by the very man whose shoes President Bush has chosen him to fill.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died Saturday, played a key role in shaping Judge Roberts by making him a pupil during the early 1980s and propelling his career as a lawyer and federal judge in subsequent years.

Ted Cruz, who clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist during the mid-1990s, recalled that he and fellow clerks once asked their boss whom he considered to be the most superior Supreme Court litigator.

.....

When Mr. Bush nominated Judge Roberts to replace outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, some suggested that it might have been more poetic had Judge Roberts been nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, because it was under the chief justice's wing that his career in Washington blossomed.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chiefjustice; rehnquist; roberts; scotus

1 posted on 09/05/2005 10:54:30 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kay

For all we know, perhaps Rehnquist suggested Roberts to Bush personally.


2 posted on 09/05/2005 10:56:34 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

I'm thinking that's a really good guess


3 posted on 09/05/2005 10:56:52 PM PDT by Mount Athos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kay
Sometimes I wonder why some important positions like this have to be so political. Why can't people just look out for whats good for the country instead of their own little slice of the pie? I hope roberts goes through as smoothly as Ginsberg.
4 posted on 09/05/2005 10:59:46 PM PDT by Meadow Muffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin

Ditto.


5 posted on 09/05/2005 11:01:36 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kay

I hope Dershowitz has to try a case before Roberts.


6 posted on 09/05/2005 11:15:37 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay

No, it would have been most poetic to have Rehnquist swear in Roberts. Some things were not meant to be, I suppose.


7 posted on 09/05/2005 11:17:07 PM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Dershowitz! No class. No tact. Denigrated Chief Justice Rehnquist on the very night he died.

What goes around comes around.


8 posted on 09/05/2005 11:17:30 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kay

Now that Roberts is being nominated as "Chief Justice to the Supreme Court" instead of plain old "Supreme Court Justice", the Democrats in the Senate will need lots more time to "reconsider" the nomination because this CHANGES EVERYTHING.

But they'll put that on hold because now they need to get on with the REALLY important business of the Senate, like holding hearings on why George Bush used hurricane Katrina to murder African-Americans living in New Orleans while helping his oil buddies price gouge at the gasoline pump.







(I pity the fool who needs the sarcasm tag.)


9 posted on 09/05/2005 11:17:46 PM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay



Obviously Ann Coulter never talked with the Chief about John G Roberts, Jr.


10 posted on 09/05/2005 11:18:22 PM PDT by msnimje (CNN - Constant Negative Nonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay
I like this quote from Jonathan Turley who obviously hates John G. Roberts.

No, the court is not likely to change John Roberts, but Roberts will almost certainly change the court.
11 posted on 09/05/2005 11:20:17 PM PDT by msnimje (CNN - Constant Negative Nonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

What makes you say that Jonathan Turley hates Roberts?


12 posted on 09/05/2005 11:21:59 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kay

Hate might be to strong a word.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-30-roberts_x.htm


13 posted on 09/05/2005 11:28:50 PM PDT by msnimje (CNN - Constant Negative Nonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing; nopardons
For all we know, perhaps Rehnquist suggested Roberts to Bush personally.

That's a very distinct possibility that I hadn't thought of before.

14 posted on 09/05/2005 11:33:05 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is a form of insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Thanks for the info.

Had dinner with several relatives tonight after work. 2 of them think that Bush will lose Roberts now that he is renominated to Chief Justice. But when I asked them who they thought Bush should have nominated, they had no answer.


15 posted on 09/05/2005 11:33:08 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kay
Had dinner with several relatives tonight after work. 2 of them think that Bush will lose Roberts now that he is renominated to Chief Justice

The Dems trapped themselves. When SDO announced her retirement they anointed her and said the PRES cannot replace a Woman swing vote with a white male conservative. Now he is replacing one white male conservative with another. They have no ammunition against him.

16 posted on 09/05/2005 11:46:01 PM PDT by msnimje (CNN - Constant Negative Nonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Hope so.


17 posted on 09/05/2005 11:52:00 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

"(I pity the fool who needs the sarcasm tag.)"

LOL! I'll drink to tha-a-a-a.........say what???

I pity the fool who needs the sarcasm tag for that.


18 posted on 09/06/2005 12:02:44 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (If it can't be used to discredit Bush or cover a Dem's sorry ass, it ain't newsworthy to the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

"I like this quote from Jonathan Turley who obviously hates John G. Roberts.

No, the court is not likely to change John Roberts, but Roberts will almost certainly change the court."

That could go either way.


19 posted on 09/06/2005 12:16:14 AM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper; SteveMcKing

That's something I have been thinking as well, but I never posted. After all, Roberts WAS Rehnquist's clerk and I assume they got to know each other pretty well.


20 posted on 09/06/2005 12:27:15 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Does Dirtbag even have permission to argue before the SCOTUS? Not every lawyer does, you know.


21 posted on 09/06/2005 12:31:30 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Obviously, Ann never even really looked into Roberts at all, but reacted emotionally to his nomination, because her "pet" ( whomever that was ) wasn't nominated.
22 posted on 09/06/2005 12:33:30 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
After all, Roberts WAS Rehnquist's clerk and I assume they got to know each other pretty well.

I learned that as recently as yesterday, and it makes alot of sense. Rehnquist would have had alot of confidence in Roberts, and may have even played a roll in getting the ball rolling on the initial announcement several weeks ago. I can remember alot of FReepers had no clue who Roberts was at the time. I know I didn't, beyond being one of the best litigators to enter the halls of the USSC.

23 posted on 09/06/2005 12:34:56 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is a form of insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Does Dirtbag even have permission to argue before the SCOTUS?

Probably as much permission as Bubba. LOL!

24 posted on 09/06/2005 12:36:49 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is a form of insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

So who does the swearing-in, since there is no more Chief Justice. I assume Roberts won't swear himself in.


25 posted on 09/06/2005 12:39:48 AM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Oh dear...I knew that about Roberts, when he was nominated. I guess that I was just beyond the curve. :-)

But then, I've always been a BIG Rehnquist fan, so perhaps that's why I knew.

26 posted on 09/06/2005 12:46:43 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Bubba could, but no more...that privilege, and YES, it is a privilege, was taken away from the Slick one.
27 posted on 09/06/2005 12:47:54 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

At least Rehnquist was alive to see Roberts get nominated.


28 posted on 09/06/2005 12:49:21 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I've always been a BIG Rehnquist fan

As have I. Afterall, Reagan nominated him. :)

29 posted on 09/06/2005 12:54:52 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is a form of insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; BigSkyFreeper; claudiustg
NOPARDONS WROTE: "Does Dirtbag even have permission to argue before the SCOTUS?"

BIGSKYFREEPER ANSWERED: "Probably as much permission as Bubba. LOL!"

NOPARDONS WROTE: "Bubba could, but no more...that privilege, and YES, it is a privilege, was taken away from the Slick one."

I think Klinton's law license was only forfeited for 5 years. It would think the time would be up by now.

30 posted on 09/06/2005 12:57:03 AM PDT by Concerned (My Motto: It's NEVER wrong to do what's RIGHT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Concerned
His law license was pulled, but at that same time, so was his privilege to plead a case, for his lifetime, if I'm not mistaken, before SCOTUS pulled.

But since Slick NEVER once really practiced law, in the private sector, it really is all for appearances anyway.

31 posted on 09/06/2005 1:00:54 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

And Justice Rehnquist was a Savoyard; as I am. :-)


32 posted on 09/06/2005 1:01:48 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Concerned; nopardons

Bubba's law license was for prestige in the political arena. Most politicians are lawyers, but they've probably never litigated a single case in their entire lives, except for John Edwards, who is no longer a politician. LOL!


33 posted on 09/06/2005 1:07:49 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Liberalism is a form of insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Meadow Muffin
Sometimes I wonder why some important positions like this have to be so political. Why can't people just look out for whats good for the country instead of their own little slice of the pie? I hope roberts goes through as smoothly as Ginsberg.

You are so right. That is what government, and our representatives, is all supposed to be about. Now we hear only about pork and bringing home the bacon to one's district.

Most citizens want good government and could care less about a new post office or a highway named Robert Byrd Thruway. The military can't make good decisions about bases because some politician complains about losing local jobs if a base closes. Most of us don't care. We just want efficiency and what is best for the military and for the country.

Things have been that way a long time but political decorum broke down in the sixties when the long latent left came out of the closet and threw all the rules to the wind. Now they are determined to control even as a minority, which is really what they always do even when in power. They represent few of the population but they control the most import levers - the media, the unions, and the education system.

34 posted on 09/06/2005 3:32:17 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
(I pity the fool who needs the sarcasm tag.)

Good that you added that. I have made post as ridiculous that were taken seriously.

35 posted on 09/06/2005 3:34:28 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
...Jonathan Turley who obviously hates John G. Roberts

I like Turley, usually, but that is just professional jealousy.

36 posted on 09/06/2005 3:35:52 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
The Dems trapped themselves. When SDO announced her retirement they anointed her and said the PRES cannot replace a Woman swing vote with a white male conservative. Now he is replacing one white male conservative with another. They have no ammunition against him.

Good point, and following up with a woman to replace O'Conner would seem a coup de grace. One problem. We are talking about liberals who have no problem with hypocrisy and doing an immediate about face. They always find some lame excuse and the MSM goes merrily along its way and the Republicans do to.

37 posted on 09/06/2005 3:39:25 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

"Good point, and following up with a woman to replace O'Conner would seem a coup de grace. One problem. We are talking about liberals who have no problem with hypocrisy and doing an immediate about face. They always find some lame excuse and the MSM goes merrily along its way and the Republicans do to."

How about a minority woman? (Hint hint)


38 posted on 09/06/2005 7:14:37 AM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone

I imagine Stevens -- being acting CJ -- would swear in Roberts.


39 posted on 09/06/2005 8:24:26 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Great point." -- AliVertias; ":-) Very clever" -- MJY1288)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
As have I. Afterall, Reagan nominated him. :)

Nixon put him on the Supreme Court, Reagan elevated him to Chief Justice.

40 posted on 09/06/2005 8:30:28 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

The dems are just throwing up new smoke on Roberts regarding being Chief Justice. Just a stalling tactic. Chieft Justice is a nice title and all. However, you still just have one vote, and your influence is not any greater on the other justices. Isn't chief justice basically the CEO/Office Manager for the USSC?


41 posted on 09/06/2005 8:33:15 AM PDT by gswilder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: zendari
How about a minority woman? (Hint hint)

A minority woman would be wonderful. That wouldn't stop the despicable conduct of the Dems but it would reflect more poorly on them than if they were attacking a white man like Roberts.

42 posted on 09/06/2005 9:27:22 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gswilder

Correct.

The only material difference the Chief Justice has is to delegate which justice authors majority opinions when the Chief himself is part of the majority.


43 posted on 09/06/2005 10:23:37 AM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kay; claudiustg

On a side note- I was watching MSNBC on my flight home from Anchorage today. Dershowitz was talking about how Roberts should not have to answer case-specific questions before the committee (i.e. Ginsberg) as it denigrates the court system and would destroy the nomination process for the future. It was a pleasing surprise.


44 posted on 09/06/2005 8:16:57 PM PDT by musical_airman (I never get into bloody Taglinius Freerepulicus! What about MY self esteem? ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: musical_airman

Wow. That is pretty amazing. The paranoid side of me says " Oh no, what does Dershowitz know that we don't know?"


45 posted on 09/06/2005 8:34:02 PM PDT by Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kay

I wouldn't get too paranoid. I have a habit of watching cable news when I'm at home practicing my trumpet in the afternoon and I've seen that type of statement out of Dershowitz before (not that it doesn't surprise me every time). Even though his personal politics don't really line up with anyone in Freeperland, has does seem to have a very deep respect for the American judicial system. I can't really cite anything specific-you're just gonna have to take my word for it.

Not that that makes him any less of a tool. Har Har.


46 posted on 09/06/2005 8:42:26 PM PDT by musical_airman (I never get into bloody Taglinius Freerepulicus! What about MY self esteem? ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson