The W
Views: 99948155
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
@479 .beats
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush picks...some guy we never heard of for SCOTUS
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.02
Pages: 1
(707 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (17 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.45
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_BUSH?SITE=RANDOM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    Jul 19, 7:57 PM EDT
    Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts
    By DEB RIECHMANN
    Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

    [MORE]
Official (very brief) bio from the DC Circuit Court website: (cadc.uscourts.gov)

(edited by CRZ on 19.7.05 1921)

CRZ
Promote this thread!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.13
He's a strong Constructionist. I believe he was Solicitor General under either Bush 41 or Dutch. I know he's been a federal judge for just a couple years - he's one of the few Bush 43 nominations that went through. But before that he argued (as SG) many cases before the Supremes.

I think I recall him making some statement regarding Roe Vs Wade.

Thanks for posting this. I am all about the WS of Poker tonight and forgot that the nomination was being announced.



It's Clobberin' Time!
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
On the argument that will end up being the big one in this whole nomination process, Roberts has been hard to pin down...

    Originally posted by AP
    Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts, while deputy solicitor general during former Bush's administration, 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."


I think his wiggle room is in the part where he says "personal views would prevent..." By saying that, he can always vote for overturning Roe on Constitutional grounds, as he argued for in his brief.

I was hoping for Edith Clement. She seemed to be the most reasonable and moderate of the possible nominees named.




BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2841 days
Last activity: 2569 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.87
I'm familiar with several of the talked about nominees, but I really hadn't heard anything about Judge Roberts. From everything I've read in the time since I heard that he was the nominee, it seems that he's a solid conservative/originalist justice as, for instance, he apparently opposes Roe v. Wade as a bad a decision. Other stuff that I've picked up makes him seem like an excellent choice.

I'm glad that Bush backed away from Gonzalez (presuming that those rumors had any validity at some point) for any number reasons, namely that he wasn't as solid of an originalist as other candidates as well as possible recusal obligations on key votes.

Now comes the hard part - getting Roberts confirmed. From all the frothing at the mouth I've seen from some liberals since Justice O'Connor retired, I doubt that anyone short of an O'Connor clone will be opposed by many Senate Democrats. However, it seems that Roberts was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for a seat on the DC Appellate Court. If the Dems try to paint him as an extremist, hopefully Senate Republicans will press the issue on why they would allow such an extremist to sit on any bench in the country. While I'm not optimistic, I hope that Senate Democrats will extend Bush's nomination of Roberts the same courtesy that Senate Republicans extended Clinton's nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer. After all, since they've talked about this nominee uniting the country they might as well back that rhetoric up by not (further) politicizing the Judicial branch.



SportsBlog (baltimorenine.blogspot.com)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 479 days
Last activity: 479 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.23
The unintentional comedy was CBS having John Roberts at the anchor desk on the night John Roberts is nominated for Supreme Court Associate Justice.
Since the confirmation hearings will likely be in September, a plea to both sides to learn from the mistakes of the Clarence Thomas hearings and don't put yourself in a situation where you force a network to cut away from a college football game. That was a good Miami/Penn State game ABC cut away from in the Fall of '91. I fear that the same fate could await Texas/Ohio State.
Barring someone from his past coming back to haunt Roberts, he should get through and get at least 55 votes.
JoshMann
Andouille








Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2292 days
Last activity: 2289 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.00

    That was a good Miami/Penn State game ABC cut away from in the Fall of '91. I fear that the same fate could await Texas/Ohio State.


Oooooooooh, do I remember this well. After about the first quarter (read: after WPLG's switchboard lit up like a Christmas tree), the compromise was that they ran the game in a picture-in-picture corner box where you couldn't see or follow anything while the hearings were going on.

Personally, my preference was Alex Kozinski (who was on the consideree list), but he was probably way too much of a libertarian to have a hope in hell of being appointed by the current White House. Although seeing decisions like "the parties are advised to chill" [re Mattel v Aqua] would have been fun to have on the big bench.

EDIT: I realize it's cached, but it was either that or giving a link that would have required a full-on pdf download.



(edited by Blanket Jackson on 20.7.05 0016)

"Did you get your Journalism degree from a box of Cocoa Puffs?"
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2544 days
Last activity: 647 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.19
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I know he's been a federal judge for just a couple years - he's one of the few Bush 43 nominations that went through.


So, I did a quick check of the Senate's web site (senate.gov), though which one can access the Thomas (thomas.loc.gov) database of legislative information.

Searching on the word "judge", I come up with 355 nominations during George W. Bush's presidency.

Searching on the word "judge" and "confirmed", I come up with 223 nominations confirmed during George W. Bush's presidency (approx. 65%).

Searching on the word "judge" and "withdrawal", I come up with 12 nominations withdrawn during George W. Bush's presidency. That means Bush gave up on 12 nominees, or about 4%.

Searching on the word "judge" and "returned", I come up with 106 nominations returned* during George W. Bush's presidency. That basically means that the Senate said "We're going on recess. Try again." to about 31% of the nominees.

Which leaves 14 unaccounted for, who seem to be the ones up for consideration at the moment.

So my question is: are you saying that 223 Judges are "few", or that 65% of those nominated is "few"? Because neither of those really jibe with my definition of the word (google.ca).

(for comparison, under Clinton, 254 nominated, 182 confirmed (72%), 7 withdrawn (3%), 64 returned (25%), and one mystery result. Those are broadly similar proportions, IMO.)

* Returning nominations to the President is done under Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6, of the Standing Rules of the Senate. This Rule states, "Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President."



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.26
Heat Miser. I respect AWA even though he and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. The "judges held up" myth is just that. If you tell the public a lie often enough even the liar begins to believe it. Both sides are effective at this. Overall all it isn't much different than under previous recent administrations. However, the conservative backlashers have turned this into a very effective tool in attempting to neuter dissent from the Dem's. And the Dems don't have the courage of their convictions, if they even have any any more.





Perception is reality
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 798 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.55
Actually, I suspect Heat Miser and the good Dr are looking at the wrong numbers. If you repeat that search using the term appellate judge and the current term, you get a much different perspective.

Doing that search, I get 29 nominations from Bush. Of those 29, 1 (Terrance Boyle's) is recent enough to be discounted. Of the remaining 28 nominations, 10 have been confirmed. The remaining 18 have all been either sent to committee or calendared and have no prospects of movement any time in the near future which means that Bush has had about 1 in 3 of his appellate nominees confirmed this term which would certainly meet my definition of "few".

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2841 days
Last activity: 2569 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.87
The factor that isn't accounted for in those statistics is that, unlike President Clinton, President Bush's party has controlled the Senate for the majority of his term. Here's (washtimes.com) an editorial from the Washington Times about circuit court appointments (it's a little dated as it was written before the Senate Compromise).

The most interesting quote from it was this:

    Thus, the first important trend shows the following appellate-court-nomination success rates achieved by presidents for the first Senate controlled by their party following the president's election and re-election: Mr. Carter (100 percent); Mr. Reagan (95 percent, 100 percent); Mr. Clinton (100 percent, de facto); G.W. Bush (52.9 percent).


So even though a majority of the President's nominees have been confirmed, the percentage confirmed is much, much lower than that of other contemporary presidents.



SportsBlog (baltimorenine.blogspot.com)
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2544 days
Last activity: 647 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.19
See, now that's interesting - I haven't seen anywhere that the problem is with APPELATE judges, I've just heard that the problem is with "getting judges confirmed". Heck, the reason I went and did the searches myself is because everything Google gave me looked like spin/propaganda for one side or the other. Bash, is there a reason you are only addressing the current term, and not Bush's first term?

And, BTW, I wasn't attempting to dis AWARulz at all. I just have been getting sick of hearing about judges getting held up without seeing any real numbers on it. He just happened to be the guy who mentioned it here.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.26
    Originally posted by bash91
    Of those 29, 1 (Terrance Boyle's) is recent enough to be discounted. Of the remaining 28 nominations, 10 have been confirmed. The remaining 18 have all been either sent to committee or calendared and have no prospects of movement any time in the near future which means that Bush has had about 1 in 3 of his appellate nominees confirmed this term which would certainly meet my definition of "few".

    Tim


I don't believe the Dem's control sending to committee or the calendar.



Perception is reality
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 798 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.55
    Originally posted by Mr. Heat Miser
    See, now that's interesting - I haven't seen anywhere that the problem is with APPELATE judges, I've just heard that the problem is with "getting judges confirmed". Heck, the reason I went and did the searches myself is because everything Google gave me looked like spin/propaganda for one side or the other. Bash, is there a reason you are only addressing the current term, and not Bush's first term?


I think it's a distinction that's been deliberately blurred by a lot of people for various reasons relating to their own positions. Most honest conservatives will acknowledge, although it may take some pressure, that Bush has done reasonably well with his picks at the circuit court level and most honest liberals, though it may take the same pressure, will acknowledge that Bush has done very poorly with his picks at the appellate level. However, it's a lot easier to conflate those positions, for both sides, than it is to actually argue them individually. Conflated, soundbites work. Separated, actual analysis and argument are required.

The only reason I looked at just this term is I was in a hurry at the time and so went the quick and dirty route. I'd have to check, and I don't have the time right now, but I think the numbers remain relatively constant for both terms.

    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I don't believe the Dem's control sending to committee or the calendar.

Yes and no. There are enough procedural tricks in the confirmation process that it is relatively easy for even 1 Senator to hold up a nomination before it even can be considered by committee. For example, Senators Levin and Stabenow have been holding up the confirmation hearings for 4 judges from Michigan for 4+ years now in retribution for Stabenow's predecessor having held up some of Clinton's nominees.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.13
My bad. As noted, I should have said Appelate judges.

In fact, while even the numbers between Bush and Clinton's terms are about the same on even appelate judges, (Both nominated about 50 and had about 16-17 denied.) The difference is in the filibusters. 10 filibusters is unprecedented. As far as I know, not one of Clinton's appointments was filibustered.



It's Clobberin' Time!
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
He's known in the DC area. He upheld the arrest of a teen-aged girl that ate a french fry in the subway. (We have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to food or drink.)

He upheld the arrest, but stressed that handcuffing her and having her driven away in a "windowless" police car was a bit much.




The Catastrophic Annihilation War Room
"You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?" --Toby, West Wing

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.26
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    The difference is in the filibusters. 10 filibusters is unprecedented. As far as I know, not one of Clinton's appointments was filibustered.


Mostly because the Rep's didn't need to.



Perception is reality
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by AWArulz
      The difference is in the filibusters. 10 filibusters is unprecedented. As far as I know, not one of Clinton's appointments was filibustered.


    Mostly because the Rep's didn't need to.

Exactly. At the time that Sen. Helms was on the judiciary committee he simply bottled the Clinton noms up in the committee.

Both sides have played this game over the last 10 years, it's just that the Dems have had to do it from the minority, while the GOP as the majority party was able to do this with less fireworks.




Thread rated: 6.02
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Hubbard's Followers to Go for the Goa!
Next thread: How did *this* slip in under the wire?
Previous thread: Woman Kills Three... in Suicide Attempt
(707 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
What a complete waste of time. The same old players, talking mostly the same old talking points. I did enjoy seeing the President squirm in his chair when he was reminded of his remarks on reconciliation.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush picks...some guy we never heard of for SCOTUSRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.149 seconds.