Well, we were all bracing for it, and now it’s happened. From the administration that brought you the breast-covering antics of John Ashcroft and the torture-justifying stylings of Alberto Gonzalez, comes another wacky nominee, replete with a whole new bag of tricks to assault your sense of morality and restrict your freedoms.
Maybe I’m being too negative, but given the appalling track record of the Bush White House in nominating right wing zealots to some of the most powerful posts in the land, my guess is not.
I’ve been keeping my eyes on the Supreme Court shortlist, watching and worrying, all the way up to this evening’s announcement of John Roberts’ nomination. I can’t say that I’m an expert on his legal record, but I am mightily discouraged by what I’ve read so far. Risa has already pointed to some of Roberts’ decisions; restricting women’s rights, and demonstrating his willingness to allow religion to ooze into schools and continue the attack on reason. Majikthise points to another decision, regarding the constitutional rights of children.
I’m both interested and terrified to see what the confirmation process will look like. The interest comes from the anticipation of gaining a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of Roberts’ positions on key issues. The source of the terror should be pretty obvious. After the Democrats’ jellyfish-like stance over the filibuster – assuming the foetal position and begging not to be hit in the face – it seems very unlikely that they’ll ever be able to use it again. Although we might see “spirited debate”, given the dual Republican majorities, it is difficult to imagine this nominee not being confirmed.
July 20th, 2005 at 6:45 am
For the sake of historical awareness take a look at this [url=http://www.i638.com/iguide.php?go=165%7E39157%7EFrank]1986 CNN-clip[/url]
July 20th, 2005 at 8:22 am
I have already heard quite a bit of commentary on this nominee, from a wide variety of perspectives and positions. Up and ’til now, none has used a word like “wacky” to describe him. So far everyone seems to concede that the man is solid and intellectually sound.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:14 am
If you have the time can you tell me what your issue is with:
“Majikthise points to another decision, regarding the constitutional rights of children.” I don’t really see what else the judge could have done? Are you suggesting he make a law up to help the kid?
Also what do you mean by:
“replete with a whole new bag of tricks to assault your sense of morality and restrict your freedoms.” Could you point to me the evidence for this? Are you basing this entirely on your reading of an “Alliance for Justice” brief?
At the start of your rant, you described the nominee as “wacky” and “zealous”, and then at the end you say “The interest comes from the anticipation of gaining a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of Roberts’ positions on key issues.” Don’t you think you should wait until you’ve done the latter before you proclaim the former?
July 20th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Here is the most thoughtful analysis I have come across so far:
http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#112183416789933217
July 20th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Well guys, I use the word “wacky” in particular because of the chuch-state stance. I do not find the idea that we should have worship in our schools a sensible one in the slightest.
The “whole new bag of tricks” thing refers to his stances on the detainees in Guantanamo, his comments on abortion, the church-state issue, his opposition to parts of the Voting Rights Act, …
It is true that I will become more informed, but I don’t see a problem with commenting on how it looks right now, given the multiple pieces of evidence that, to my mind, make him a dangerous choice for America.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Sorry about that. Try this shortened url:
http://shorl.com/geregremivypry
July 20th, 2005 at 9:55 am
I agree with danithew: Don’t take this issue down the road where epithets like “wacky” are thrown out — Roberts is anything but wacky.
Whether someone agrees with religion in school or not is totally besides the point. What does the law say, what will it allow, how should it be molded to fit what society wants from it? Those are the questions and some of the criteria one uses to come to legal decisions and how to legislate, and decisions resulting from this are bound to not set well with a significant constituency. Frankly I don’t think we should all have unfettered access to guns, and I don’t believe the second ammendment, which speaks of gun ownership in the context of a well regulated militia, confers that right. Yet the courts and our legislators consistently support a right to buy just about any thing that shoots a projectile.
Roberts apparently is a well-respected jurist, a point I made in Risa’s post about this and won’t belabor here. How one may feel about his opinions, especially when one isn’t a lawyer who has the tools to dissect those opinions within the context of the law, is just “feeling”, which we’re all entitled to but which in no way confers an opinion regarding qualification.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:36 am
This is perhaps the best rundown of the situation:
http://billmon.org/archives/002038.html
Souter-in-reverse. There’s not much we can do about it unfortunately, but it shouldn’t stop us from fighting his nomination.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Some info about the case of the girl handcuffed and arrested for eating freedom fries in the Washington DC metro.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/01-759.pdf
July 20th, 2005 at 11:31 am
You guys are so restrained! OK – I absolutely won’t insist you call him “wacky”. Do you think “authoritarian, sexist, tool of the Christian Right” would be better?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Hey Mark,
why are you so bitter? George Bush won the election by a comfortable margin and it is his right and duty to nominate a candidate of his choosing. If John Kerry had nominated a feminist, environmentalist, oppressed minority, socialist candidate you would have been happier — and dismissed all comments that such a choice is unreasonable.
You have got to accept the democratic process, so grin and bear it. Absent any rational arguments, and you are presenting none, this is your only choice. (Your choice of being whiny about it really is none.)
United we stand.
Michael
July 20th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Well Trevor, I’m bitter because we have a President who first got into office by virtue of the Supreme Court stepping in and preventing a recount. I’m bitter because the man who said he was a “uniter not a divider” has been one of the most divisive forces in American politics. I’m biter because for the first time an administration is considering writing bigotry into the constitution. I’m bitter because in these modern times, this administration is trying to return us to the dark ages. Man, do I need something sweet after all that.
Yes, I’d like a judge who (given the right definition) is a feminist and an environmentalist. Their minority status is not something high on my radar and I certainly don’t want them to be a socialist. Being whiny doesn’t help – you’re right about one thing – but joining with others to try to effect political change does. That’s what I’m going to be doing.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
I think it’s far more about having someone in the SC who will take care of the family’s business….. Roberts seems to be quite the loyal Bush family servant…
July 20th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
“but joining with others to try to effect political change does”
Sure enough. It’s just — all the left-wing efforts have already failed: John Kerry lost the election, remember? You can be bitter all you want, your next chance is not until 2008 to do something meaningful about it. The conservative political majority is exercising its democratic rights, as would have done John Kerry, were he not a taller Dukakis.
I think all this complaining, filibustering and shouting “fraud!” is the disingenuous, and gladly hopeless, attempt of a minority to impose their ideology on the majority. You know, the Republicans do not have to care that people like you want environmentalists on the Supreme Court bench. There is no obligation on their part to even listen to your unreasonable requests.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
This blog needs to change its name, I believe. I have read through all the posts, and I see no evidence for “variance” among the political views expressed by the authors. Based on my rather cursory statistical analysis, the mean is far to the left and the rms is quite small indeed. So much for truth in advertising!
I would hold off swallowing your cyanide pill before we actually see how this guy votes over the next couple of years. As a conservative, I am cautiously optimistic about Roberts, but I hate nominees without a significant judicial paper trail. (It’s a bad case of PSSS: post-Souter stress syndrome.) Not a home run for Bush, but a step in the right direction. (Pun intended.)
“Are you suggesting he make a law up to help the kid?”
Yes, that is precisely what he is suggesting. You see, having judges make up the law is the modus operandi of modern liberalism, because they cannot get people to support their candidates and agendas at the ballot box. Ironically, the people who call themselves “Democrats” are the ones with the most disdain for democracy.
Your cosmologically conservative friend,
Zero
July 20th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Trevor,
You are absolutely right – Bush DID win the election, and it is his right to nominate a candidate of his choosing. Kerry would indeed have probably nominated someone quite different.
However, the victory does not give Bush some divine mandate – just because he won does not mean that we have to mindlessly agree with every decision he makes! The democaratic process is not about getting out every four years to elect our next supreme ruler, as you seem to imply – it’s about everyone having a voice in the government. You say that we should “accept the demoratic process,” by which you mean we should cease to express our views for another three years. But the whole point of the “democratic process” is that we can – and should – voice our disagreements. Mark isn’t advocating overthrowing Bush (THAT would be undemocratic); he is just voicing his opinions about the government – and THAT is what the democratic process is all about.
I’m a fan of what Ali said earlier – there’s not much we can do, but that shouldn’t stop us from fighting.
July 20th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
Mark
1) What IS you ideology? I would like to know what political change you intend bringing about? I know you wish for GWB not to be in office, but what would you have instead?
2) This administration is admittedly a poor one but your attack on future supreme court justice Roberts as an “authoratarian, sexist tool of the Christian Right” is just plain wacky.
Zero
The idea that liberals want judges to make up laws arbitrarily is not a power grab. When they are IN power they STILL want judges to make up laws arbitrarily!
July 20th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Not sure I have an ideology David. But partial answers to your questions are:
An alternative to Bush? Almost anyone would do. You and I don’t seem to see eye to eye, but I’d bet you’d do a better job than Bush. Let me know if you need a campaign manager.
I would like to see a country in which we have freedom of religion but it plays no part in politics and is only taught sociologically or historically in schools. Like we do about the Greek gods, or the pagans.
I’d like not to be lied to about the evidence on which wars are fought. I don’t need to know everything about what goes on in the White House, but I need to trust it. For example, I don’t need to know if the President is being serviced by an intern, since that doesn’t affect my life (or anyone else’s for that matter), but I do need to know if oil companies are being asked to help set national energy policy because it’s just possible that they have a conflict of interest.
I’d like to see us not running ridiculous deficits, against which we are mortgaging our future – either don’t spend so much or, if we need to spend, let’s pay for it.
I’d like an administration that uses scientific data to decide which direction to go on important topics like stem cells, energy policy, reproductive rights and climate change, rather than listening to oil companies and churches.
I’d like to have us recognize that loving relationships between two consenting adults makes two more people happy, and that if you’re against that then you really are not allowing people their pursuit of happiness.
I’ll stop there, but there’s more, of course.
As for “authoritarian, sexist, tool of the Christian Right”; I would have thought you’d recognize me poking you with a stick for what it is.
July 20th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Zero– It’s true, we tend to be a little bit to the left of the median American. Also, we don’t believe in astrology, nor that creationism should be taught along with evolution. I guess we’re just not typical.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
Trevor, #14, miswrote – the first opportunity to change things politically is 2006, when perhaps Republican majorities in Congress and Senate can be reduced.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
Certainly in regard to the girl arrested for eating french fries in the DC Metro, Roberts’ decision smacks of a very literal interpertation of the law. Do we really want to live in a country where such Draconian laws can be made to stand? Is there no such thing as an overreaching legal system? perhaps Roberts is right. But I read his decision. While he rebukes the police department for their treatment of the girl, he does so in a rather lighthearted manner. A judge has it within his purview to dennounce harshly such Draconian, silly laws. Maybe Robert didn’t have the guts to do so. Or maybe this is an example of his “strict constructionist” views.
July 21st, 2005 at 9:54 am
Thanks. Will stop talking now!
July 21st, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Sean: With all due respect, you and your fellow bloggers are more than a “little to the left of the median American”. I’m actually trying to give you some advice here. In politics as in life, you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you are. And to win elections, you need to know where you are compared to the American public. I suspect that, having been immersed in the political monolith of academia all these years, you’ve developed a rather distorted estimate of the “center”. And, trust me, that isn’t going to aid the promotion of your cause.
Your pal,
Zero
July 21st, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Zero, thanks! Without your help I would never know where I stood with respect to the American public.