John G Roberts? SCOTUS?

[Annie]

ABC is saying this is the one. One more hour to go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

John G. Roberts Jr.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

John G. Roberts Jr. (born in Buffalo, New York, 1955) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, having been nominated by President George W. Bush on May 9, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on May 8, 2003.

Roberts graduated from Harvard College in 1976. Roberts receivied his Juris Doctorate from the Harvard Law School in 1979.

He was a law clerk for Henry Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1979-1980, and for Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981. He then took a job as special assistant to William French Smith, the attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1982, before being appointed associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-1986.

He entered private practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington D.C. law firm of Hogan & Hartson, but left to serve from 1989-1993 as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice. He returned to Hogan and Harston in 1993 as a partner where he remained until he was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In private practice and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General he has argued more than 30 cases in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Roberts has been mentioned frequently as being near the top of the list of potential nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, should one of the current justices leave the Court during George W. Bush's presidency.

 

[dilloduck]

ABC is saying this is the one. One more hour to go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

FOX is confirming that now

 

[Annie]

Early endorsement:

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/g...Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/04/15&ID=Ar00101

Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Apr 15, 2005;


SUPREME COURT

Buffalo Native Is Seen as a Confirmable Conservative

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS JR. ‘COMBINES YOUTH, INTELLECT, TEMPERAMENT, JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY’

By LUIZA Ch. SAVAGE Staff Reporter of the Sun



WASHINGTON — If President Bush is looking for a potential Supreme Court nominee with conservative credentials who would inspire a minimum of fuss at a confirmation hearing, he may turn to Judge John Roberts Jr., say fans of the Buffalo native, who sits on the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

“Almost alone among the serious candidates, Judge Roberts combines youth, intellect, temperament, judicial philosophy, and confirmability,” said a former associate White House counsel,Bradford Berenson, who worked on judicial selection under President Bush.“He is young, he’s bright,he’s conservative,he’s well respected across the ideological spectrum, and he’s unlikely to run into effective opposition if he were nominated.”

But liberal critics say not so fast — a pre-eminent Supreme Court litigator before ascending to the bench, Judge Roberts argued for overturning the landmark abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade while he was deputy solicitor general in the Reagan administration.

A potential battle over his nomination could come down to the question of whether a lawyer should be held responsible for the arguments he makes on behalf of a client.

At 50, Judge Roberts has the youth and experience to make him an attractive pick, should Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is ill with thyroid cancer, retire.

The judge earned solid conservative credentials serving in the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush. Prior to becoming a judge, he was a lawyer in private practice who argued 24 cases before the Supreme Court.

“I think he’s got an excellent shot,” said Washington lawyer Tom Goldstein, who frequently litigates before the Supreme Court. “He was the most respected member of the Supreme Court bar,”prior to taking to the bench,he said.

And his nomination would present the potential for a personal homage to the chief justice: Judge Roberts served as his law clerk a quarter-century ago after earning his bachelor’s and law degrees at Harvard.

President Bush appointed him a year and a half ago to the prestigious D.C. Circuit court, which has served as a stepping-stone for Supreme Court judges. His appointment was confirmed without objection in the Senate.

While his judicial experience has been brief, a short judicial tenure is not unprecedented for a nominee to the top court.And it could help him prevail in a confirmation hearing because he has not had the time to rack up an extensive paper trail that would help senators pin down his personal views.

On the other hand, some conservatives worry that the lack of a clear record does not allow them a clear picture of how he would rule from the bench.

“He is certainly an upstanding guy, but David Souter was an upstanding guy,” said a conservative legal observer who asked not to be named, referring to the justice appointed by President George H.W. Bush who has frustrated conservatives with decisions that frequently side with liberals on the bench.

But others are convinced Judge Roberts is on their side.

“John Roberts is a serious conservative,a mainstream conservative — a constitutionalist,” said the executive director of the Committee for Justice,a group that advocates for President Bush’s judicial nominees, Sean Rushton.

Judge Roberts’s Senate confirmation hearing to the appellate bench was relatively smooth. Republicans squeezed in three nominees on one day — Judge Roberts, as well as Judges Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah Cook, who were considered more controversial and received the lion’s share of the questions.

The scrutiny of Judge Roberts centered on his role in co-authoring a Supreme Court brief for the Reagan administration arguing that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided and should be overturned.” The case was called Russ v.Sullivan,and the government argued that it could prohibit doctors in federally funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients.

The brief stated the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Roe, “that there is a fundamental right to abortion … finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

The Alliance for Justice, a liberal group that tracks judicial nominees, declared that Judge Roberts had “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.”

The group pointed out that Judge Roberts also argued on the government’s behalf that court supervision should be lifted in school desegregation cases; that public high schools should be able to perform religious ceremonies at graduations (a position rejected by the Supreme Court), and that religious groups had a right to meet on school grounds (a position the court accepted.)

His defenders argue that no individual brief should be held against him because a lawyer is duty-bound to represent his clients and make all reasonable legal arguments in the client’s favor. “There is extraordinary cover there,” said Mr. Goldstein. “It was his job to sign the brief.”

Senator Hatch,a Republican of Utah

who chaired the confirmation hearing, said it was “patently unfair” to attribute the arguments personally to Judge Roberts. “Attorneys are required to represent their clients,” he said. “This fact is so fundamental that it should go beyond reproach.”

Mr. Hatch noted that the nominee’s clients also included welfare recipients that he represented for free, a prison inmate who alleged cruel and unusual punishment,Hawaii’s Democratic attorney general and governor arguing in favor of a race-conscious program to benefit native Hawaiians, and a Nevada regulatory agency seeking to limit property development around Lake Tahoe.

“He is very confirmable,” said a former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Frist, Manuel Miranda. “He has had a rich variety of clients that cannot be easily characterized as liberal or conservative.”

The legal director of People for the American Way, a group that is preparing to fight conservative nominees, Elliot Mincberg, said the judge’s past briefs and some court rulings “have been troubling.”

Because of his short record as a judge,“his testimony would be very important.”The abortion brief in particular “would create very serious problems from the beginning.”

Mr. Mincberg does not accept the argument that Judge Roberts had no choice but to sign the brief.

“John was the political deputy of the solicitor general’s office. He was not a lowly trial attorney who has to follow orders.As the political deputy, he helps make that policy,” Mr. Mincberg said.

At his hearing, Judge Roberts said the government briefs were written through a “very broad collaborative process,” sometimes involving 10 government agencies.

He raised the example of John Adams representing a British soldier involved in the Boston massacre. “There is a long standing tradition in our country … that the positions a lawyer presents on behalf of a client should not be ascribed to that lawyer as his personal beliefs or his personal positions,” he said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed his nomination 16-3.

Supporters expect Judge Roberts will receive friendly treatment from the Washington press corps as well.

“He is already well-known to the Washington media and goes to all the parties and the meetings,” said Mr. Miranda.

Perhaps most importantly, Judge Roberts is also well known to the justices, having argued before them on many occasions. The administration would be nominating “someone 20 or 30 years younger than the justices as the chief justice,” said Mr. Miranda. “They need someone the justices know.”

 

[dilloduck]

Early endorsement:

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/g...Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/04/15&ID=Ar00101

The left is armed and ready--let the battle begin!

Kennedy hates him--nuff said.

 

[Abbey Normal]

...
Kennedy hates him--nuff said.

What a point in his favor!

 

[Bonnie]

What a point in his favor!

Sounds to me like this very smart man will eat both kennedy and Schumer for lunch at these hearings. Should be quite a show.

 

[dilloduck]

Sounds to me like this very smart man will eat both kennedy and Schumer for lunch at these hearings. Should be quite a show.

No joke---I wonder what off the wall crap the old drunk will have to say THIS time.

 

[Bonnie]

No joke---I wonder what off the wall crap the old drunk will have to say THIS time.

If your looking for some first class humor and entertainment it might be fun to watch ol Teddy stammer his way thru constitutional law arguments with Roberts..

 

[Annie]

Lieberman goes for Roberts...

http://www.courant.com/news/politic...14,0,4264662.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics

Senators Consulted On Court Vacancy

Rove Reaches Out To Dodd, Lieberman

By DAVID LIGHTMAN
Washington Bureau Chief

July 14 2005

WASHINGTON -- Presidential adviser Karl Rove has consulted with both Connecticut senators on a Supreme Court nomination.

Neither Christopher Dodd nor Joseph Lieberman, nor the White House, would discuss the conversations, which occurred over the past week.

Rove and other top administration officials are privately consulting with many Democrats about the choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced July 1 she was retiring.

Lieberman is one of the "Gang of 14," seven Democrats and seven Republicans who in May broke a Senate deadlock by agreeing not to filibuster judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

Lieberman said he was pleased with how the White House has handled the process so far.

"The administration has taken very encouraging and constructive steps," Lieberman said.

Lieberman cited in particular President Bush's statements that he had ruled out a litmus test for a nominee and that he would not be pressured by interest groups.

This morning the Gang of 14 will hold its first meeting since O'Connor's announcement, and although no names are expected to come up, the topic could involve the standards for filibustering.

So far, though, Bush's comments "all sound like what most of us were hoping for," Lieberman said.

Bush has been reaching out to Democrats all week.

Tuesday, he hosted a meeting at the White House with Senate leaders from both parties, and former Sen. Fred Thompson has been talking to former colleagues about the choice.

Lieberman offered reporters Wednesday three names he said could be considered without sparking a talk-athon. He would not say whether he brought them up to Rove.

He said federal appellate Judges Michael McConnell and John G. Roberts were "in the ballpark," and that "people tell me" appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is "very similar."

Lieberman emphasized that should they be nominated, they would be carefully scrutinized.

McConnell, 50, was appointed to the federal bench by Bush and confirmed three years ago. Before that, he was a law professor at the University of Chicago and the University of Utah.

Conservative groups have praised his outspoken disagreement with the Roe vs. Wade decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion in certain instances.

Roberts, 50, was also named to the appellate court by Bush. He is well-known in Washington, having been an attorney at a top city firm for 14 years, and as principal deputy solicitor general in Bush's father's administration. During that period, he argued for a government rule that prohibited abortion-related counseling by federally funded family planning programs.

Wilkinson, 61, was named to the appellate court by President Reagan in 1984. A former professor at the University of Virginia Law School, he also is the former editorial page editor of the Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk.

Copyright 2005, Hartford Courant

 

[Annie]

I truly hate Dick Durbin:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011555.html

Tuesday :: July 19, 2005
Senator Durbin Weighs in On Judge John G. Roberts

Here is the text of Sen. Dick Durbin's statement on Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. Durbin is on Larry King Live now.

“The next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for years to come. Even if a Supreme Court nominee is honest and professionally competent, that person must also be committed to protecting the rights and liberties that are at the core of our democracy.”

“The President had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process.”

“Now the Judiciary Committee will begin its work. For my part, I will look for one thing -- will this nominee strive to protect the rights of all Americans or will he be a judicial activist with an ideological agenda rather than an independent judge with an open mind.”
​

Posted Tuesday

 

[Annie]

More links than you have time for:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003061.htm

SCOTUS WATCH: ROBERTS FILE
By Michelle Malkin · July 19, 2005 08:10 PM

Tony Mauro of the Legal Times reported in February 2005 that SCOTUS nominee John Roberts' votes "have mainly fallen on the conservative side, but not always:"

Last December, in United States v. Mellen, Roberts ruled in favor of a criminal defendant who challenged his sentence in a fraud case. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson -- yes, an appointee of the first President Bush -- dissented.

In the July 2004 decision Barbour v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Roberts joined Merrick Garland -- a Clinton appointee -- in deciding that sovereign immunity did not bar a D.C employee with bipolar disorder from suing the transit agency under federal laws barring discrimination against the disabled. Conservative Sentelle dissented.

But then there was another WMATA case -- known as the french fry case -- which some critics point to as a sign of a certain hard-heartedness in Roberts' decision making.

In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.

Roberts also displayed what some viewed as insouciance toward arroyo toads in a 2003 case, Rancho Viejo v. Norton. Roberts wanted the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider a panel's decision that upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation protecting the toads under the Endangered Species Act. Roberts said there could be no interstate commerce rationale for protecting the toad, which, he said, "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."

In another decision last June, Roberts went even further than his colleagues in supporting the Bush administration in a case that pitted the government against veterans of the first Gulf War. American soldiers captured and tortured by the Iraqi government during the first Gulf War sued the Iraqi government in U.S. court and won nearly $1 billion in damages at the district court level.

But once Saddam was toppled in 2003, the Bush administration wanted to protect the new Iraqi government from liability and intervened to block the award. Roberts, alone among the circuit judges who ruled with the government, said the federal courts did not even have jurisdiction to consider the victims' claim. An appeal is before the Supreme Court.

Mauro quotes Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," praising Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work," Levin told Mauro. "He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

Levin's colleagues at Bench Memos also seem to have positive impressions.

Mauro reports that Roberts is on good terms with Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a key liberal interest group. The two men worked together years ago and Mincberg likes him personally. "He's a very smart lawyer and easy to work with, but there is no question he is very, very conservative," says Mincberg.

Roberts will probably have less luck with The Alliance for Justice, which opposed his nomination to the D.C. Circiut Court of Appeals two years ago, and NARAL, which objects to the work he did as Deputy Solicitor General under Bush I. Both groups say Roberts is hostile to reproductive rights.

There was some very useful discussion of Roberts at The Volokh Conspiracy back in May. See here. Orin Kerr wrote on May 24:

I am repeatedly struck by how people from across the political spectrum are tremendously impressed by him and his work. Especially as a replacement for a conservative Chief, Roberts seems like the best shot at a consensus candidate.

***

Props to Bradford Berenson, who predicted Roberts' nomination several weeks ago. "If I had to pick, I'd say it will be John Roberts," Berenson told the L.A. Times. "Roberts "is young, conservative, a Bush appointee — and his would be an easier confirmation."

Frank J. at IMAO, on the other hand, was not even close!

***

Hugh Hewitt's having a radio marathon tonight on the SCOTUS nominee.

Confirm Them has posted Roberts' intros from his SJC hearing.

The indefatigable N.Z. Bear has already set up a John Roberts tracking page here.

Right Side Redux has some quick pro and con links.

Sunday WaPo profile of Roberts here.

The Political Teen has video of Fox News's announcement.

www.JudgeRoberts.com has been taken.

Tim Chapman at Townhall.com says Roberts is "rock solid" and points to Roberts' response to Sen. Charles Schumer's question about his judicial philosophy:

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Deciding the case . . . . requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term “judicial restraint.” That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will. . . .[T]he framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench."

***

848pm EST Carl Cameron reports that Roberts and his wife dined with President Bush and the First Lady this evening. Bush "offered Roberts the job" at 1235pm.

***
Liveblogging the press conference...video via The Political Teen. Full transcript of President's remarks via Center for Individual Freedom.

9pm EST. President Bush: John Roberts has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice...earned a reputation as one of the best legal minds of his generation. He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench...He is prepared for even greater service.

This confirmation can be done in a timely manner...It is important that the newest justice be on the bench when the Supreme Court reconvenes this coming October...

907pm EST. Roberts: [paraphrase] Experience arguing cases before Supreme Court gave him vaulable perspective. Always got a "lump in his throat" before entering hall. Thanks family. Over.

911pm EST. Sen. Patrick Leahy. Mumbling about "ordinary Americans" and "special interests." Blah. "No one is entitled to a free pass" to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Praise for Sandra Day O'Connor, attacks "extreme right" for criticizing her. I'll work with Sen. Specter for a fair hearing. "It's going to take a fair amount of time" to do that.

***Schumer. There is no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials. [But] only 2 years on the D.C. Circuit court...many of his personal views "unknown." It is his obligation during the nomination process to know those views. The burden is on the nominee to prove that he is worthy. I voted against him because he did not answer questions openly.***

0924pm EST. Fox News H&C. Ken Starr. He's terrific. He's a great human being. He has a stunning record...universally respected, one of the premiere lawyers of our time.

AP's on the abortion beat. The Volokh Conspiracy covered Roberts on Roe here.

The NY Times reports tonight:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, was cautious. "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials," Mr. Reid said, promising a thorough review by the Senate.

Politics aside, Judge Roberts is very much a part of the Washington legal establishment, on good terms with many Democrats as well as Republicans. When he was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, President Bill Clinton's former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, called him an "exceptionally well qualified" lawyer, according to a profile in The Washington Post.

 

[Bonnie]

Kathianne...Mark Levin was absolutely giddy at this nomination!

 

[Annie]

Kathianne...Mark Levin was absolutely giddy at this nomination!

No doubt.

 

[pegwinn]

Let the games begin.

Thunderdome.......... two men enter, one man leaves......... heh heh heh

 

[Bonnie]

Let the games begin.

Thunderdome.......... two men enter, one man leaves......... heh heh heh

Who runs Barter Town?? Master Bush runs Barter Town LOL

 

[Annie]

Who runs Barter Town?? Master Bush runs Barter Town LOL

Powerline again, the beginning sounds like repeat stuff, but I liked the end of the post:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011084.php

JOHN adds: Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative. And it was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful. After President Bush's terrific, upbeat presentation of Roberts, and Roberts' graceful, brief talk, Leahy and Schumer sounded like they had just dropped in from another planet. They were dour, hateful, and came across as sad and pathetic minions who have been sent on a hopeless mission by their bosses at "People for the American Way."

It's a great day for conservatives and for America. Thanks to President Bush for nominating the best person for the job--or, certainly, one of the best people, along with McConnell, Luttig and one or two others--rather than taking the easy, politically correct way out.

The only thing inhibiting my own champagne consumption is that I have to go on the radio in an hour or so.

UPDATE: I met Roberts a month and a half ago at the graduation party of a high school student we both know. In addition to the qualities mentioned above, he has another one that should help him significantly in the next few months -- a fine sense of humor.
Posted by Paul at 07:11 PM

 

[Bonnie]

Powerline again, the beginning sounds like repeat stuff, but I liked the end of the post:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011084.php

That is so true, they all looked like dead men walking. Funny because Levin and Laura Ingraham both thanked president Bush for picking such a great man, it was very upbeat, the way it should!!! If Kennedy and Schumer, and NARAL hate Roberts, that's all I need to know to LOVE him! :teeth:

 

[Annie]

That is so true, they all looked like dead men walking. Funny because Levin and Laura Ingraham both thanked president Bush for picking such a great man, it was very upbeat, the way it should!!! If Kennedy and Schumer, and NARAL hate Roberts, that's all I need to know to LOVE him! :teeth:

To cinch it, Durbin LOATHES him, which speaks very highly of Roberts.