I Hope Drudge Is Right This Time:
The Drudge Report is saying that President Bush will be nominating John Roberts to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. Roberts is my favorite among all of the people on the short list: he is brilliant, and his opinions as an appellate judge are textbook examples of outstanding judicial craft. Drudge was wrong about Rehnquist retiring, but I hope he's right about Roberts getting the nod. Stay tuned.
Alexander (mail):
7.19.2005 8:53pm
aslanfan (mail):
I hope he becomes Chief someday.
7.19.2005 8:59pm
LiquidLatex (mail):
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrong." - Roberts

This is the worse choice Bush can put forward just about. Male and a stupid ass anti-privacy advocate?
7.19.2005 8:59pm
frank cross (mail):
Before we can take confidence here, does anyone know if he's ever heard the voice of Todd?
7.19.2005 8:59pm
James Ellis (mail):
A great choice.
7.19.2005 9:00pm
Atty in Chicago:
Wow, and to think I started to doubt President Bush's dedication to picking a great Justice. Not anymore...I'll raise my glass to the Prez tonight!
7.19.2005 9:02pm
LiquidLatex (mail):
Good lord, he has two notable decisions and that is all. Why are you people coming out in favor of this man who has a record more tailored to politics than the impartial(as humanly possible) law?
7.19.2005 9:05pm
Justice Fuller:

Stop reading Atrios and try actually learning about John Roberts. I think you'll find yourself very impressed.
7.19.2005 9:07pm
Joe Socher (mail):
"This is the worse choice Bush can put forward just about. Male and a stupid ass anti-privacy advocate?"
With trenchant criticism like that how can anyone support him?
7.19.2005 9:15pm
Mark Edelman:
Isn't Roberts going to have an "Estrada" problem, i.e., aren't the Democrats going to demand his SG office memos? Is the White House going to reverse course and comply? If not, doesn't this give the Democrats non-ideological cover for their opposition?
7.19.2005 9:17pm
LiquidLatex (mail):
Justice Fuller I'm going on what scotusblog and two other sites are saying is his record. He has been on the bench for two years in DC and was appointed by Bush. He has two notable cases. That's pretty much it on top of the absolute absurdist anti-roe comments.

Please by all means lay out the positives and negatives of this man. Thanks.
7.19.2005 9:22pm
I'm more troubled by his anti-regulatory stance than anything else in his background, including Roe. Reading the takings clause broadly enough to stifle federal environmental regulations is a bit too much for me. That's nothing if not lapsing into "activist" jurisprudence. But I agree that he's a brilliant jurist and an inspired choice.

He'll probably be a lot like Scalia, a guy I love to read but who's politics I can't stand.
7.19.2005 9:23pm

that should be "whose"
7.19.2005 9:24pm
Joe Socher (mail):
Seth Waxman (prominent dem attorney):
"They are both exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocates." (referring to Miguel Estrada and John Roberts) The Washington Post, May 23, 2001.

Richard Lazarus ((less prominent than Waxman) dem attorney):
Supports Roberts' nomination and says Roberts "is not an ideological person at all.... In the eight years since he left the solicitor general's office, I don't think Roberts has filed a single amicus brief for a conservative ideological organization. And I will guarantee that given his prominence, he's being asked all the time to do so. He just hasn't played at all in that game." The Broward Daily Business Review, June 5, 2001.
7.19.2005 9:35pm
John Jenkins (mail):
LiquidLatex, you're distilling the man's career to the two years he has been a Circuit Court judge. That's ignoring his accomplishments, both in government service and without. You can view his biography on the D.C. Circuit's website.

The man has a reputation as a brilliant appellate litigator, which presumably means he knows a little bit about how the whole process works. He doesn't have the baggage of a long-term judge that results from having to decide cases with bad facts.

Of course, if there is anything possibly negative about the man, I am sure the ACLU, PFAW, &DNC will find it to protect their ideological flanks (I wonder if it will be something as disingenuous as taking a position as a litigator with which they disagree, imputing the position of the client to the lawyer? They wouldn't do that, right? Oh wait, they already have...)

The comment about maleness is simply banal and unworthy of comment. As to privacy, so what if we turn back the clock all the way to Griswold? That's why we have different states, so people who don't want to live in Texas under Texas laws (California and California laws) can move somewhere else and enjoy the laws they prefer.

Aside from that, the politial will simply doesn't exist to ban abortion (or contraceptives) anywhere in the United States at this point, but having that debate in the legislatures as they consider laws, as opposed to in the Senate when it considers judges, would be a welcome, sensible change.
7.19.2005 10:00pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
A wonderful choice. First class experience as an Appellate Lawyer representing the Government at the highest level, businesses and individuals alike. He has clerked for two giants of the Bench.

His nomination proceedings to the DC Circuit went without a hitch. Nearly unanimous.

A quality pick because he is a quality human being. This puts the Democratic Leadership in a real bind.

As to the reactions: Leahy sounds like he is going to cry. Schumer has thought this approach out long before, and he is emphasizing "thoroughness" and much questioning.

This "advice and consent" will be a long process, I predict, with much posturing. He will be confirmed either without a filibuster or with the nuclear option.
7.19.2005 10:20pm
Devin McCullen:
Based on what I've heard, I would be surprised if the Dems went for the filibuster, but we don't know yet what their lines of attack are going to be and how well they'll go over with the public. If their arguments don't seem to be getting a lot of traction, I don't think they'll push it. We'll have to see how it plays out.
7.19.2005 10:29pm
arbitraryaardvark (mail):
Do we know anything about where he stands on any issues?
Great resume, but it seems like he's mostly been a hired gun. Has he published anything, maybe as an undergrad?
Any background on early life - I hear he's from Indiana?
Any gossip from his clerking days?
7.19.2005 10:37pm
Roberts will be an easy confirmation.
7.19.2005 11:12pm
Adam (www):
Justice Fuller, it's 11:20pm and Atrios has posted nothing about Roberts. Please give liberals credit for thinking for ourselves.

And it'd help if conservatives would share with us those things that give them such confidence that this was a great pick. His qualifications are beyond question, but what convinces people that he's the Sure Thing that was demanded?
7.20.2005 12:22am
Bob Woolley (mail):
<< his opinions as an appellate judge are textbook examples of outstanding judicial craft. >>


I've just started reading some of his opinions, and came across this sentence:

At approximately 9:30 p.m. on December 21, 2001, officers Dereck Phillip and Marvin Washington of the Metropolitan Police Department observed a car traveling at a high rate of speed.... (U.S. v. Holmes, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 21787,*;363 U.S. App. D.C. 246; 385 F.3d 786)

Ugh. No opinion in which the phrase "high rate of speed" appears can be considered "outstanding judicial craft." A decent command of the language is more imporant than sharp legal analysis for what I would consider"judicial craft." If it is lacking, no other positive trait can make up for it.
7.20.2005 2:12am