From Overheard in New York:
Fat guy: Yeah, this O’Connor thing is really big. Most people don’t know this, but the Supreme Court has the final say over all laws that are passed. I think they approve it before even the President does. Like I said, it’s big.
–Florent, Gansevoort Street
From the NPR coverage: about W’s meeting with John Roberts Jr, who he has just announced as his first nominee to the Supreme Court:
“They’re painting it as a match made in heaven, they just got along really well.”
“He has a good heart.”
“Does this nomination seem like a slam dunk?” “Pretty dunky, I’d say” — Nina Tottenberg
Well, that’s lovely and all, but maybe we should look at his positions on the issues.
Via americablog, a detailed report by the Alliance for Justice. Here are some excerpts:
John G. Roberts, nominated by President Bush to a seat on the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has a record of hostility to the rights of women and
minorities. He has also taken controversial positions in favor of weakening the
separation of church and state and limiting the role of federal courts in protecting the
environment…
Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly
impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have
“resegregated” America’s public schools. He also took strongly anti-choice positions in
two Supreme Court cases…
He was a co-author of the government’s brief in Rust v. Sullivan,10 the case in which the Supreme
Court upheld newly revised Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning
programs receiving federal aid from giving any abortion-related counseling or other
services. The provision barred such clinics not only from providing abortions, but also
from “counseling clients about abortion” or even “referring them to facilities that provide
abortions…
Roberts co-authored two briefs on the government’s behalf arguing for court supervision
to be lifted in school desegregation cases. In a 1990 case, the amicus brief co-authored
by Roberts in his capacity as Deputy Solicitor General sought to weaken the standard and
limit the timeline for court-enforced desegregation decrees in the nation’s schools…
Roberts co-authored two briefs arguing for an expanded role for religion in public
schools. In one case, he co-authored a government amicus curiae brief before the
Supreme Court, in which he argued that public high schools should be allowed to conduct
religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program, a position rejected by the Supreme
Court.
More at People for the American Way, who
details his charming opinions on the constitutionality of Endangered Species Act and the secrecy of Vice President Cheney’s
energy task force. NARAL’s got the full anti-reproductive freedom goods
here, and there’s a pretty detailed bio in the dkosopedia.
It seems he is also suspicious of federal laws in general, and singled out the Violence Against Women Act as a place where the federal government shouldn’t have juristiction.
But apparently he’s very nice, and Georgie likes him, so we might as well just give him a pass. Or you could click here or here.
July 19th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
At TPM Cafe, “edgeofkaos” pointed out (ahead of time, I should add) the obvious reason why it wouldn’t be Clement — it would have been “uncharacteristically non-confrontational.” She would actually have been confirmed by the Senate without too much trouble.
Looks like they will avoid that awkward possibility. Roberts is supposed to be “brilliant,” but he doesn’t have the kind of record that will help him sail through the Senate.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
[...] Sean « Roberts [...]
July 19th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Hello..I just stumbled across this site. I’m looking forward to adding you to my blog prowl. By the way..I think you meant “americablog” not “americaNblog”.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:44 am
It’s not just the “Georgies” that like Robert. The Tottenburg quote regarding “Dunky” was a bit out of context with regard to the full range of what she had to say, which included the fact that there are many democrats, lawyers in particular, as well as newspaper folks (to include the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of right wing perspective, which supported his district court appointmet)that believe this man is a good jurist and suited to the SC.
Frankly I’m not a lover of G.W. or much to do with the right wing, but then just because G.W. and those on the right may feel someone’s a good candidate doesn’t mean he/she might not be a good candidate for everyone; certainly Souter and Kennedy both have shown that. There were candidates FAR more egregious than Roberts, and it’s well worth considering how much effort is worth expending on opposing a man who on the whole is well-liked by members of both parties and who has otherwise shown himself to be an accessible and emminently qualified jurist. If this were another Clarence Thomas I’d say it’s worth the effort. In this case Roberts is an intelligent, thoughtful, and well-qualified individual, one that has justifiably arrived at legal conclusions that those of different ideologies may not agree with but which doesn’t make him wrong or unsuited for the position before him. Moreover, as any follower of the Supreme Court surely knows, past performance is NOT an indicator of future returns.