Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Bush Selects "Strong Conservative" Roberts For High Court

President Bush on July 19 chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the 109th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Bush’s first nominee for the high court.

Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan.

While he has been a federal judge, in the District of Columbia, for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

***

You didn't really think that Bush was going to select one of the three federal judges offered last week by Democrats, did you?

10 Comments:

Blogger OTTMANN said...

Robert's pick just goes to show Bush's good judgement. Watch as liberal democrats like Schumer and Kennedy will be further denigrated when they try to smear him for their baby murdering minions. Actually, it's already happening.

11:47 PM  
Anonymous JollyRoger said...

Damn-the monkeys are incredibly predictable on this one. Personal attacks, assurances that this is "all she wrote" for the dems-the Monkey Brigade is out of steam.

11:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt they'll battle over abortion. Roberts has said that he would uphold Roe v. Wade.

According to the MSNBC story:

"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."

12:01 AM  
Blogger Phil said...

He also stated in a brief (while working as a lawyer for the first Bush admin) "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." So, how he would rule in an actual case on the matter is rather a big question mark.

I'd be curious to find out why his nominations for Appellate Court judge fell through in 1992 & 2001, especially considering the Republicans keep hyping how he breezed through the nomination process in 2003.

But actually, the most interesting (and troublesome, IMO) little fact is his involvement in the 2000 Presidential election legal battle, where he & his firm worked for Bush. It really smacks of political back scratching.

12:22 AM  
Blogger Marie said...

Hold your tongues Democrats. Let our Senate deal with this one. It'll be ok. ;)

12:24 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

"Hold our tongues?" You come to the comments page of a busy political blog and urge no discussion. Um...

Marie, are you saying we should sit quietly and wait for our senators to do what they think is best? I would say my senator is supposed to represent me, so it's okay for me to have an opinion on this matter and to discuss it. Actually it's my duty to get an opinion on this and then start writing and making phone calls to my senator's office. Free the tongues!

4:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well there you have it.
I wonder if all those people worried about terrorism and homosexuals in electing Bush knew that they would face the prospect of an ultra-conservative court, positioned to turn the clock back on decades of progress in civil rights, women's rights, employee rights, etc.
Let this be a lesson to those who believe exercising their rights to vote does not make a difference.

7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any one who says "hold your tongue" and allow the government to do its dirty work unchecked might as well pack their bags and move to a communist state.
Conservatives cry like babies when anyone questions the actions three branches of government and brands them unpatriotic, only to flip this position the moment the Democrats take control, which will happen again soon (can you say, mid-term elections 2006).

7:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He struggled in 1992 and 2001 because those were Democratic-controlled congresses. He breezed through in 2003 because it was a Republican-controlled Congress.

Regarding abortion, I would place his most recent comments -- that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned -- ahead of comments he made as a lawyer a decade earlier.

10:35 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares