Skip to comments.BUSH PICKS John G. Roberts
Posted on 07/19/2005 4:44:48 PM PDT by freedrudgeEdited on 07/19/2005 4:52:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says...
What is this guys 2A stance? Answer me that one and then I'll congratulate the President.
Great news if true. Now time to get down to the serious work of stomping the Dimwits into oblivion, and getting the confirmation done. Here's hoping Frist has a firm grip on the RINO genitalia, this time out.
Let me second the just damn.
Way to go President Bush
Ooooo a white guy....Jesse ain't gonna like this one bit.
Rogers will make it there at some point IMO
We'll find out.
I too would have been happy with Ms Brown. And I'd gladly be happy for any female, black or hispanic justice that walks the walk. IMHO, they have to be someone, anyone that believes in the Constitution as it was intended originally, and who won't make it into a 'living document' which can be altered to accommodate every new fad.
Pouting mode for sure. It will take no time before they trounce on Bush for not selecting a woman.
Hey bg, I'm still hoping for JRBrown for when Rehnquist steps down. And that's coming from a Jewish white guy, if that makes any difference. She's superb!
Looks like this is going to be a dog fight. Not that I like dogs fighting, but popcorn and beer are in the mix.
BTW, the radio news just announced "breaking news" during the top of the hour news, about the "memo" in the Rove case. It was exactly the same memo news we've been reading for two days. LOL
This is why we fought so hard back in September and October. This is our moment, and our President made it count. We should all call and thank the WH ASAP.
The left is soo transparent.
That happened this morning following the foolish (and purposeless) false report.
The reason I leaned toward a minority or woman is because in order for this President to push through many of his nominees he was forced to prey on their weaknesses. The nominees he selected were well qualified, but there was a political calculation in the mix. His reasons for doing so were different than the PC culture, though, in which they believe in tit for tat. Dubya just threw that thought process out the door.
Guarenteed the Libs are frothing with this pick. LOL the Reps in the Congress had better damn well push him through. There will be no leniance for "civility" from the base.
No doubt you already heard this, but just in case here is the President's Supreme Court nominee. The President did not let us down.
"So when will the FReepers who said President Bush would cave to the liberals apologize?"
I'm pretty sure that most people said they hope he doesn't cave to liberals.
Why not find an actual post that says that, and ask the poster yourself?
I was hoping for Bork also (knowing that it would not happen as that would be just TOO just and right for this backward nation of ours).
However, it is horrible for Bush not to nominate Estrada, a great, decent and honorable judge who was Borked. Bush should have drawn the line and nominated Estrada and let the war begin.
Same goes for Pickering.
Lauras gonna be pissed!
I went for the deek. Nice move Mr. President. Just when I thought the Republicans were missing a pair.
so both have a strategy to push harder.....
Not Bill Murray, it's Tony Randall's cousin.
Here's our guy
LET'S GET IT ON!
I think I saw that picture on the show "Hippo Beach." No, the hippo did not have breasts that large. Sorry, my mistake.
Well we'll have to see if any of the GOP senators have any.
President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, senior administration officials said.
Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.
Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.
Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.
Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn
Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.
"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.
In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
While he doesn't have national name recognition, Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice.
In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general,the government's second highest lawyer who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist before Reagan elevated the retiring jurist to the top chair in 1986.
It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003.
Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.
"He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.
...uh...Bush could "promote from within"....
A lactating hippo is more like it.
U bad....bawhahahhahahaa...gotta love it!!
That is likely, though perhaps not if Rhenquist is the next to go. This nomination doesn't overturn RvW, but when a lib steps down, he'll probably nominate a woman. As someone else posted, probably better not to have RvW overturned by 8 men. Get a conservative woman in on shooting it down, and it is politically more acceptable.
Anyway, we got our first good solid conservative pick. Yee-haw!
You can say that again. LOL He probably got a chuckle out of all the 'Edith' discussion going on.
So, do you think John Roberts is 'mainstream' enough to be confirmed without a fight from the Dims? ('cause I'd worry about the his judicial quality if confirmation is too easy.) :^]
Roberts, whatever his qualifications, would have been easier to defeat for CJ.
I was fooled. I was sure it was gonna be a woman. Not that I have anything against a woman, I just hate the sense of inevitability that our culture now attaches to the "diversity" game. Ie: since it was O'Connor's seat, it had to go to a woman. Props to Team Bush.
Well, if we can't have Michael Savage, I guess this guy will do.
I hope this guy is conservative as he seems....like some have said already....the more liberals scream the more we know Bush made the right choice.
Whats the over under in days before he's smeared as racist, homophobic, a god squader, or all of the above? And who will be the first senator to attack him personally?
I say 1 day and Boxer.
By the way wouldnt it be great for him to be personally attacked in conf hearings and have him challenge a senator to a dual over honor. That would be STRONG!!!!
I'm pleased with the appointment, subject to further review.
I too would not only have been happy had the nomination gone to Janice Rogers Brown, but at this early moment, I probably would have preferred it. I know more about her than I know about Roberts, and I like very much what I know.
over here ping.
I think Chucky will beat the other Dems to the mikes to trash him.
JRBrown, JRBrown, JRBrown. Just keep saying it over and over again. A woman and a minority. Double whammy. Take that libs!
As a government lawyer, he wrote briefs urging that Roe v. Wade be overruled. But the position he argued as a government lawyer is not necessarily his personal view.
So would I, a white male, have been happy with Ms. Brown. It's time for everyone to judge a person not by the color of their skin but by....., as MLK said.
I want royalties for the second photo on your profile page.
Peeing your pants?