-
20 Jul 2005
I'm not entirely sure I'd vote to confirm John Roberts, Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court. I definitely disagree strongly with his ideological views. On the Court of Appeals, he upheld secret military tribunals for terror suspects. As an attorney, he argued that Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He's also argued against environmental regulation a number of times.
On the other hand, this might be the wisest thing I've ever heard a judicial nominee say: "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." How strongly should political views influence Congress' decision to confirm a nominee? The Left has only a certain amount of power in the current administration, but if Roberts was denied or filibustered, could a different nominee really be any better? I can't see Bush nominating someone centrist, but there's always the chance he'll nominate someone more activist.
Update: More selected opinions.
Geoff says:
We know that under Bush and the Republican congress, we are not going to get someone who agrees entirely with even a moderate Democrat. Unfortunately, it appears the Supreme Court will be right-leaning for many years to come, perhaps decades. It is a sad outlook. You may be right that Roberts may be the least controversial nominee Bush would come up with. I am sure he has lots worse in his sights. The Democrats in congress should pick their battles well. They will not get many. Of course, Bush could not have picked someone with a shorter paper trail and what happened to the Hispanics and women he was “considering”? It seems appropriate that he picked a WASP male.
Ellyn says:
Agree with the comments above but want to add the clarification that Roberts isn’t a wasP - he’s a wasC as i understand that he’s Catholic not Protestant.
Logan says:
I agree that diversity (of sex, race, etc) on the SCotUS is important, but it’s almost certainly less important than diversity of opinion. Even non-white non-Christian women can be wrong. The stuff I’ve heard in the last 36 hours doesn’t solidly point in one direction or the other. Some people compare him, ideologically, to Scalia or Renquist, but others seem to think that he’s a rare judge that doesn’t let his personal beliefs get in the way of making the right decision.
Whether the former group is Left and the latter is Right is unclear. I think he’ll be confirmed, and I don’t think my opinion will change much: there could be better Justices, but not from this administration.
nomad says:
Don’t mess with the supreme court man, they’ll make abortions manditory (even if you’re not pregnant). What kind of arrogant name is SUPREME court?
Logan says:
Kang: Abortions for all.
[crowd boos]
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone.
[crowd boos]
Kang: Hmm… Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]