Comments on: Stuff on Day 3 of Roberts’ confirmation hearings

By: Jake Squid

Jake Squid — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 04:13:29 +0000

Yes, any President who gets to appoint a Chief Justice would like to have a person that he appointed to the court himself. It allows the “Chief Justice X” court to have the appointing President get full credit for its legacy.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:12:05 +0000

Kim, From wikipedia:

Most Chief Justices are nominated to the highest position on the Court without any previous experience on the Court; indeed many, like John Marshall and Earl Warren, without any experience in the entire United States Judiciary.

By: Kim (basement variety!)

Kim (basement variety!) — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:13:07 +0000

Out of curiousity (haven’t been able to figure out the correct sequence to google!), how precedented is replacing a Chief Justice with someone who hasn’t even sat on the supreme court before?

Honestly, this is the one that has me thrown for a loop, and I haven’t heard others really mentioning it. Is it that common?

By: RonF

RonF — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:25:02 +0000

Replacing Rhenquist with Roberts is expected to be a wash, although you never know how these things turn out. It’s the O’Connor replacement that will possibly make a big change in the Court.

By: The Countess

The Countess — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:05:15 +0000

La Lubu, I agree that abortion isn’t the only issue, but it’s an important one. I’m glad it’s getting discussed. I’m sure Roberts will be confirmed, and replacing Rehnquist with him won’t be much of a change. The Padilla case is also getting attention regarding Roberts. I don’t think one issue is necessarily taking attention from the other.

By: alsis39

alsis39 — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:43:38 +0000

It’s not the only issue to “everyone on the left,” Lu. It’s just that the liberal blogosphere and its Right-wing gate crashers have a different definition of what constitutes the full range of “left” issues than some other folks do.

By: RonF

RonF — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:01:26 +0000

Roberts’s previous rulings seem to indicate that he would uphold this ruling and other similar rulings infringing on Constitutional rights and international law.

International law is only relevant to the Supreme Court when it is part of a treaty that the President has signed and the Senate has ratified. Being a member of the U.N. does not make any hare-brained scheme the U.N. comes up with law that the U.S. is subject to. I make this point because one recent ruling by the U.S. on the death penalty (which I oppose) cited Scottish and other laws. The Supreme Court has no business considering any laws that are not American.

I think that the ruling on Jose Padilla was wrong. Designating a non-citizen as a “foreign combatant” (or whatever the phrase is) seems legitmate to me, but an American citizen has rights that no American official should be able to erase.

By: RonF

RonF — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:19:10 +0000

IIRC, no justice has ever answered questions on how they might rule in the future on specific issues. Judge Roberts isn’t going to be the first. Neither is Pres. Bush’s next nominee, who, if they are not a complete nutball, will also get confirmed. Not that the President isn’t capable of nominating a complete nutball, but I doubt it will happen.

Sure, Roberts has been coached. Any nominee to the Supremes will be coached, no matter who’s President. The basic principles seem to be 1) don’t tell anyone anything about how you’re going to rule on a given case, hypothetical or not, and 2) keep control of your emotions.

By: Lu

Lu — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:16:19 +0000

Just for the record, I didn’t see The Countess’s comment before posting mine. Women’s reproductive health is an important issue. I just don’t think it should crowd everything else off the stage.

By: Lu

Lu — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:14:32 +0000

Why is Roberts’s confirmation all about abortion? The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Jose Padilla that the President has the authority to detain US citizens indefinitely without charge, and that case will likely come before the Supreme Court. Roberts’s previous rulings seem to indicate that he would uphold this ruling and other similar rulings infringing on Constitutional rights and international law.

Trading Roberts for Rehnquist doesn’t change the equation on Roe. It may not make much difference to other civil-liberties cases either, but I don’t understand why everyone (on both the right and the left) is more concerned about abortion than about the possibility that a US citizen could be locked up for the rest of their life without due process.

Now don’t everybody flame at once.

By: The Countess

The Countess — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:11:49 +0000

I piped in, too, on my blog. I was an Independent until the last election, when I switched to Dem. I’m seriously considering switching back to Independent, since the Dems don’t seem to think that women’s reproductive health is an important issue.

By: The Heretik

The Heretik — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 05:14:06 +0000

Roe has been whittled down. Where the law allows liberty, regulation restricts its full flowering. And the Democrats are not doing much to keep Roberts from having anything but a smooth ride to a seat on the bench for life. Why people don’t see the implications of Roberts ascendancy speaks to the fact that people presume life will be as it is now forever into the future. Or will it be the past?

By: Mad Kane

Mad Kane — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:30:36 +0000

Thanks so much for linking to my Roberts limericks and for your fine selection of Roberts linkage.

By: alsis39

alsis39 — Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:22:09 +0000

Gee, imagine all the fun we’ll have yet again when Dubya nominates another potential Supreme Court justice.

As with the old Jell-O[tm] slogan, “There’s Always Room For One More Cop-Out.” :p

Nice of Lauren to point out that Roe has been eroded so badly over the years;Truth is, a lot of these patriarchal DP party hack shitheads –in office and on blogs– probably have no problem with that. Hell, the elected species participates in these erosions with the sure-fire knowledge that their own pwecious daughters and wives won’t be affected. If Roe stays on the books but only a scant handful of privileged women can actually get an abortion, they are two-time winners. They compel us to stay barefoot, pregnant, and out of their way, but they also get to claim that they’re really Nice Guys Who Care.

Let’s not forget the ancillary slogan: “There’s Always One More Reason To Put Off Founding That Woman’s Party.” [tm] :p Do you suppose that when there are finally so many Rightie justices on the SC that Roberts is the default moderate voice –and when the usual passive-aggressive shills are saying that “we” need to “save our strength” for the next big battle and not make a fuss– it’ll finally be time ?

(Just sign me “laughing on the outside…”)