Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The Nomination of John Roberts: Battle in the Wings, Confirmation in the Senate

John Roberts, currently a justice on the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, has been nominated by President Bush to the Supreme Court of the United States. Now that we have a name, we can begin a real debate. The criticism on Roberts will be that he is hostile to civil rights, the environment and legalized abortion. He also has a history of allowing more church/state interaction than some on the left would prefer.

Those in favor of legalized abortion strongly opposed Roberts’ nomination to the appellate court and that opposition was strongly countered by groups seeking to overturn Roe. Does this portend another interest-group battle this time around? Yes. Put money on it. Nothing is more divisive than abortion and Roberts’ 1991 brief (which was written for a client) supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade will likely be the big story early on.

But will there be trouble in the Senate? Unlike other judges who are perceived to be right-leaning, Roberts was not filibustered and was unanimously confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court in 2003. But, as an editorial by Alberto Gonzales pointed out two years ago, Roberts was initially appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush but never received a hearing. He was nominated again in 2001 by the current President Bush but, again, never received a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing while the Democrats controlled the Senate. It was only after the Republicans took control that Roberts went in front of the committee where he was sent to the floor by a 16-3 vote.

This is a very interesting history. It indicates that Roberts is controversial enough for the Democrats to quietly oppose but too respected and too clearly qualified for the Democrats to openly oppose. So what happens now that the stakes are high?

As The Volokh Conspiracy discussed in May, there is solid reason to believe the liberal interest groups will strongly oppose a Roberts nomination and could sway a few Senators to do the same. But Roberts 100-0 confirmation to the Circuit Court bodes well for his chances here. I simply cannot see a rational reason why the Democrats in the so-called gang of 14 would oppose this nomination—and if they are on board, then Roberts will take O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court.

Roberts is conservative but nothing in his record reveals him to be outside the right side of the modern mainstream. There will be a fight in the wings over Roberts. But I think he’ll make it through the Senate without any deafening battles. This was an astute choice by President Bush. It appeases his base but won't send the Senate into crisis.

4 Comments:

At 9:09 AM, Blogger Heiuan said...

My knee jerk reaction is to not favor anyone completely opposed to abortion...and then my brain kicks in. :D

As I understand it (and I could be wrong as I haven't done much research yet) Roberts wrote most of his more controversial stuff at the behest of his employers. Umm, as far as I know, if you work for a company and are representing said company, you are SUPPOSED to write what they want instead of what you want.

I say, give the man a chance to tell us what HE believes, not what he was required to write due to his employment contract with others. If it comes down that HE believes in something you don't like, THEN actively oppose him on those merits.

It isn't right to pillory someone on account of speeches and papers written for his employers' voices.

 
At 9:32 AM, Blogger Alan Stewart Carl said...

You are right, Heiuan. Roberts has a frustratingly short record of his own. The vast majority of his writings were done for conservative clients. Although he was a clerk of Rehnquist's and is still good friends with the Chief Justice--which would lead me to think the two share a similar judicial philosophy.

But we won't really know how far right Roberts is until he's been on the court for a few years.

 
At 10:01 AM, Blogger Heiuan said...

Alan, I agree that his clerking for Rehnquist would be a good reason for assuming they share judicial philosophy. I fully expect the man to be a conservative.

What I want to learn about him is whether he will choose to exercise his duties in a thoughtful, deliberative manner or simply be a rubber stamp for the GOP. The only way to determine that is by finding out what he personally believes and how he intends to carry out his duties on the Court, if confirmed.

 
At 2:43 AM, Blogger 陳珊妮sammi said...

cool!very creative!AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,a片,AV女優,聊天室,情色

 

Post a Comment

<< Home