It's all over the news that the President is nominating John G. Roberts to replace Justice O'Connor. He's an inspired choice. Robert is probably the best Supreme Court litigator of his generation, and is considered a total star within the DC legal community (on both sides of the aisle). Bravo.
Guest (mail):
Seems the AP didn't carefully edit their pre-written Roberts report. As of 8:21pm, the report still said:

"In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist before Reagan elevated the retiring jurist to the top chair in 1986."

Uh...retiring? Not so much.
7.19.2005 9:22pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
From this Dem's perspective, could be worse. I hope Clement declined the position, because I'd be awfully disappointed if I were she.
7.19.2005 9:27pm
RPS (mail):
Have we ever had a justice sit with someone who clerked for him? I would think it's rare. If someone is appointed at 50 (like Roberts) and hires a 25 year old clerk, the hiring justice would be at least 75 when the clerk would become "eligible" (roughly).
7.19.2005 9:45pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Over at ObWi, they're concerned about Roberts' view on executive wartime powers. Anyone here got any comments on that?
7.20.2005 1:01am
Bob Woolley (mail):
I see that Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court's denial of en banc rehearing in Seegars v. Ashcroft, in which the DC Circuit found lack of standing for DC residents to challenge the city's gun ban, absent actual adverse enforcement, or at least a heightened threat of enforcement than they had. This is a good thing. That case deserved rehearing, whatever one's views of the gun ban, because the panel followed circuit precedent even though it appeared to conflict with supreme court precedent.
7.20.2005 1:21am