07/20/2005
The Verdict?
When everyone was focusing on that decoy Edith Clement yesterday, Bush went out and got himself a justice nominee who has been a judge for only two years. Said Bush, "He has the qualities that Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness and civility. I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike will see the strong qualifications of this fine judge."
Is that the case? Roberts seems to have offered somewhat diverging opinions on Roe v. Wade. He helped author a brief for the first Bush administration solidifying their opposition to Roe v. Wade but during his own confirmation hearings two years ago, he said, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Roberts has written close to nothing on LGBT issues, but it seems that his views on the constitutional right to privacy will be what are inspected most closely on the road to his confirmation. Craig Crawford recalls the Souter nomination in the Huffington Post:
"I'll never forget the stunned faces among senators and spectators on the day 15 years ago when Supreme Court nominee David Souter answered that question in the affirmative. It was the first answer of his Senate confirmation hearing, and it showed that he embraced the legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade's protection of abortion rights. Conservatives were furious, never forgiving President George H.W. Bush for naming Souter. Liberals were shocked, quickly endorsing his nomination."
The Religious Right seems satisfied, with the president of the Family Research Council clucking, "The president is a man of his word. He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done."
A Scalia or a Thomas? Now, that's not good news.
Howard Dean's statement was noticeably cautious: "It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored. Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all."
Planned Parenthood: "The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety. It is particularly troubling that Roberts went on the record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned when he served as a lawyer for the government."
Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese: "With the Roberts nomination, the right to privacy and the future of a fair-minded Court are in grave danger. Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled. Reversing Roe could undermine fundamental rights to privacy and liberty that are the legal underpinning for the freedom of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans."
It seems that Bush has chosen a nominee with a very limited professional record (perhaps the most calculated decision of all) so I'm sure we'll learn much more in the weeks ahead and when the confirmation hearings begin in late August.
Until then, let's put the focus back on Karl Rove and the crimes he may have committed against this country.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 9:00 AM EST by Andy in Current Affairs | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Perfect ending, Andy! The timing on this is pure Rove, isn't it? Take the attention away from the administration's wrong-doing; shift it to something we can all fuss and fume about. This nominee has 2 years experience as a judge??!! That's insane . . . I don't think they really feel this person can get pushed through . . . at least, I'd hope we'd have higher standards for SCOTUS!
Posted by: Will | Jul 20, 2005 9:28:23 AM
Many justices seem to change or moderate over time so Roberts' short tenure as a judge might foreshadow he's not the long-term gift rightwingers are hoping for. Just trying to be optimistic here.
Gotta run...late for my daily prayer for the health of John Paul Stevens!
Posted by: Bob | Jul 20, 2005 9:40:15 AM
So let the games begin!
Posted by: hoyaboy | Jul 20, 2005 9:42:27 AM
Well I personally am overjoyed at this choice. Now we may get a chance to overturn the most potentially anti-gay court decision in history: Roe vs Wade.
Folks, its only a matter of time before they discover what makes us gay... that infamous "gay gene." And when that happens, that gay gene will be detectable in pre-natal tests. And when that happens, expextant mothers will test for this gene as a matter of couse (along with a search for other genetic "flaws"). And when that happens, coupled with the baby-killing-on-demand principle defined by Roe vs Wade... the GAY HOLOCAUST will begin.
Within a generation, we will be wiped out. I dare say 99% of pregnant mothers, no matter how progressive they claim to be... will opt to abort upon discovery of the gay gene in their unborn baby. This is inevitable. Anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves.
This court appointment is the best chance we've had in a while to nip this potential Gay Holocaust in the bud before it actually begins. Thus I applaud this Supreme Court nomination.
Guys, see http://www.plagal.org/ for more info, and how great this is that this dire threat to our entire community, our way of life, our very SOURCE of new members into our fabulous subculture, may now hopefully be averted.
Posted by: Cassius | Jul 20, 2005 11:38:05 AM
I don't see a proven divergence in his opinions on Roe v. Wade. In one instance, Roberts wrote a brief on behalf of a conservative administration (keyword: behalf); in the other, he expressed his personal opinion. Roberts' personal opinion matters more to me, and it seems slightly positive – albeit guarded. Time will tell, I guess.
Posted by: travis | Jul 20, 2005 11:47:44 AM
Andy, I really like to read your blog postings but I gotta say: hold the mirror up to your own image, guy.
To read this blog sounds like a script right out of the talking points office of the DNC or one of their political allies.
Dean, HRC, and Planned Parenthood? Now there are some political hacks who hazard the gay community's political future by marching lockstep with the LibLeft's agenda of hate and politics of character assination.
You CAN do a lot better, Andy. You have in the past.
I've met Judge Roberts, I've heard him speak at judiciary functions in DC, and I think he'd be good for the Court. He's anything but a political hack.
And if you keep spewing the talking points of the LibLeft, you're going to be tagged more appropriately as a political hack rather than a cute, cool, hip blogger. Mirrors are up, Andy.
Posted by: Matt-Michigan | Jul 20, 2005 12:30:31 PM
The "partisan hack" caption is probably best reserved for Joe Solomonese. Leave it to the guy who formerly ran Emily's List to turn a gay-rights organization into another organ of the abortion-rights movement. He put party over principle when Emily's List supported Inez Tenenbaum just because she was a Democrat, and oh yeah, also a staunch supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
I'll take the cooler heads at NGLTF (never thought I would say that about them) and Log Cabin any day, thank you.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 20, 2005 12:31:54 PM
Forgot to mention that HRC had to manufacture this "crisis" to drum up funds. The same statement by Solomonese was sent to HRC memebrs via email with an urgent plea for an "emergency contribution." Shameless.
It's clear that groups like HRC and NARAL were so determined to oppose ANYONE the President nominated that they merely cut'n'paste the name into their pre-made press releases.
Posted by: Matt | Jul 20, 2005 12:37:13 PM
be careful about his "personal view" - he merely said there is nothing in his PERSONAL VIEW to prevent him from applying precedent - which doesn't mean he doesn't have a professional (legal) view that Roes was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned. We won't know, either way, before a vote. Which will most likely mean a dozen or more democrats will vote against him as they can claim not to be satisfied with vague and evasive answers he gives during the confirmation hearings, then he's in, and we cross our fingers.
Posted by: bj | Jul 20, 2005 12:37:21 PM
Ah, Michigan that bastion of gay civil liberties. Ah, Matt-Michigan, another of the voluntarily brainwashed taking it dry up the ass by the GOP when he's not sucking cock. I hear Santorum's office is hiring.
Baby Judge Roberts? Two words: "devout Catholic." He'll still be on the court thirty years from now, shooting down civil liberties like clay pigeons when Matt is toothless and left to blow sailors for cans of Ensure in the parking lot at the old folks home.
Posted by: Leland | Jul 20, 2005 12:40:59 PM
If I were a senator I’d be holding any sort of judgment. Granted, a Republican president sits in the White House. As such we should expect a conservative nominee (just as we would expect a more center-left candidate from a Democratic president). But plenty of questions need to be asked of the judge – AND ANSWERED BY HIM.
"The president is a man of his word. He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done."
Tony Perkins, president of the radical-right Family Research Council, said yesterday.
Scalia and Thomas are what I consider to be "activist judges" who "legislate" Fascist social policy from the bench. If during the confirmation process Roberts turns out to have a similar judicial temperament, his nomination should be defeated promptly.
If confirmation hearings show that he is a strong federalist and a defender of judicial restraint, then the Senate should give the Republican president his associate justice.
But, for now, I’ll take a wait and see approach. On to the hearings.
Posted by: Wayne | Jul 20, 2005 12:46:12 PM
I think we should find out a whole lot more before rushing to judgment. The Senate should be tough and thorough with this nomineee, just like any other.
Watched Charlie Rose last night and Larry Tribe seemed to be okay with this choice. Frankly, I expected the worse...like a true Scalia clone. but i am withholding judgment to more research on Roberts. Let the vetting begin.
As I keep reminding my friends here in San Francisco, some of which went off the deep end and voted Nader in 2000, we have no one to blame but ourselves (and Al Gore) in letting bush be elected in 2000: while most of us were busy making money and distracted in other ways, the neo-cons got their boy elected and we are witnessing the results.
This is part of our karma as much as the Bush administration is beginning to reap theirs:most importantly, the President's sliding credibility in the polls.
Posted by: sportyjoe | Jul 20, 2005 3:51:02 PM
Answer the question boys...
Will you be in favor of abortion on demand when the mother is aborting the fetus because genetic testing reveals the gay gene? Yes or no?
Posted by: Mitch | Jul 20, 2005 4:11:47 PM
The partisan hack notion seems a little far fetched. I reviewed his political donations and while they are entirely Republican they are relatively (and surprisingly) small. He is not a big money donor to the GOP, mostly giving money to candidates in his old home state of Indiana and in Illinois where an old friend from school runs the state GOP. Even there, his donations were token dollars at best. True, he did help out with Bush V. Gore, but frankly, if he hadn't been on the Bush team, Gore would have been stupid not to ask him to join their team given his solid credentials before the Supreme Court. Personally if I needed a case argued before the Supreme Court, he would be at the top of my list. As someone who actually read the 28 pages of his previous Senate confirmation questionnaire, I refuse to be as panicked as so many other people seem to be about this nominee. Let's face facts, Bush is a Republican President who likes VERY conservative judges and who has a Senate controlled by like-minded Republicans. Frankly, we Democrats can bitch all we want, but Roberts is as good a candidate as we could have hoped for. At least we have a fighting chance that he could be a Souter or a Stevens. Remember the first Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. Bush could have easily thrown Janice Rogers Brown up there, which would have been Hell on Earth in comparison. Even still, in reading Roberts' briefs, there was very little there that I, as a registered Democrat, could find fault with. He is a brilliant lawyer used to arguing both sides of an argument equally well and if his record shows anything at all, it shows that fact loud and clear. The real question is: when he is the one deciding instead of the one arguing, where will his decisions fall? At this point, it is really anyone's guess. My guess is that with his affable demeanor and long history with the court, he is more likely to be a unifying force on the court who may end up being more conservative than O'Connor but likely not by much. I would say he is probably more like Kennedy, a centrist who is more often than not a conservative-siding justice. The other cautionary note comes from his years working for Reagan. His job included vetting candidates for judgeships, and during his time, Scalia, another conservative Catholic like Roberts, was selected for the court, and his former mentor Rehnquist was elevated to Chief, both causing a solid and clear shift to the right.
Posted by: derek | Jul 21, 2005 5:19:15 AM
Hey Leland, play nice or your name goes to the top of the list for the day when we start moving radical LibLefty gay terrorists to the concentration camps in Idaho.
Gheez, really, with guys like you in our midst I wonder if we will ever stop playing the victim and start actually addressing society's ills. Crawl back under the bridge, ok, with the other intolerant bigots.
Posted by: Matt-Michigan | Jul 23, 2005 11:03:19 AM