(no subject)

[jianantonic]

You folks are a bright bunch - I'm curious about something and I want your opinions.

Honestly, I haven't done extensive research on the topic, but I've read lots of CNN coverage on John Roberts. What do you think of him?

My initial reaction is that he's actually going to be a decent judge. I don't like that he was nominated to be Chief Jusitice, but better him than Thomas or Scalia, it would seem. I mean, he just seems really down to earth and reasonable for someone nominated by George Bush. It seems he's about as moderate as I could hope for. He might even pull a Stevens - get nominated by a Republican, because he's a Republican, and turn out a really liberal career. That'd be awesome.

But Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton voted against his confirmation, and I tend to like them and agree with them (politically, anyway). So, liberal friends, I guess what I'm asking for are reasons to be suspicious. So far, I'm leaning toward liking him, but I feel very wrong about that...I just don't know why.

So...what do you think?

Comments

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

Initially, the fact that he wouldn't say anything about his policies comforted me--after all, judges really are supposed to be neutral enforcers of the Constitution. They aren't supposed to be politicians.

Then I remembered that Bush was pushing really hard for his appointment, even promoting him to chief justice. This makes me worry that Bush knows something I don't about Roberts's politics.

I am concerned that Roberts will turn out to be a chief justice who is strongly against many things I believe in.

I am hopeful that this is not the case.

[artsygeek.livejournal.com]

Well, his reticence to state his positions is both comforting and unsettling. It's comforting for me in that he used the Ginsberg precedent (Ruth Bader's statement that she won't say what her position IS on something that will probably be decided in the near future), but it's unsettling in that he wouldn't even give an analysis of, say, Brown from his viewpoint, except "I like it"; same goes for Griswold, he said he liked it but didn't say WHY.

[pwylltwiceborn.livejournal.com]

His refusal to answer any questions is rooted in two things.
1)Bork. He was honest and open, and got torpedoed as fuck.
2)The fact that once you make a blanket statement on a ruling or case (especially a pending case) you're obligated to recuse yourself. Nobody's gonna blanket-recuse themself before getting on the court.

[oobermeister.livejournal.com]

from what i've heard his record doesn't sound good. me no like.

Random Thoughts!

[harri-cady.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

I like the above link because it is brief, but it also has links to some of his decisions for further reading.

He (and his wife) seem like good people who do a lot for their community. I agree with you there. I like his taste in films too, apparently :)

He *seems* to have no problem with current abortion laws. I hope that's true. That was my main concern when I first learned that Bush would be nominating a replacement for O'Conner. Who knows what that nomination will bring.

What worries me is his nomination for Chief Justice. I don't understand how that usually works, but I'd be more comfortable were a current S.C. Justice "promoted." Maybe that's not how it happens, as any position in the S.C. tends to be "for life."

I also kind of wish a woman was nominated, but hey, there's always next time. Ha.

Re: Random Thoughts!

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

The Chief Justice has some power, but not a whole lot more than the others. I don't know where the post was where all my government-major friends weighed in on this, but yeah.

Re: Random Thoughts!

[harri-cady.livejournal.com]

Ooh, okay. I need to learn more about it! I've only ever had one law class. We talked about things in terms of "The Warren Court" or "The Rehnquist Court," but I wasn't clear if there was more power/media attention/what.

Re: Random Thoughts!

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

The power is in the fact that the Chief Justice selects who writes the decisions/opinions and also has significant influence over choosing which cases to hear. It can be just a figurehead type deal, but certain CJs, like Warren, for instance, used their power (and their ability to unite the court) to make great changes.

Re: Random Thoughts!

[pwylltwiceborn.livejournal.com]

The CJ only assigns the opinions he agrees with. When (s)he dissents, the most senior Justice on the majority side assigns it. (We've covered this ground before, I know...)

His influence on selection is significant, but not huge--if any 4 justices vote to hear a case, it makes the cut.

[artsygeek.livejournal.com]

True...he could turn out to be a Stevens or Souter and be really liberal....most likely, IMNSHO, is that he'll turn out to be like Kennedy or O'Connor (most likely Kennedy). As far as him being chief, I don't think it really matters THAT much, until we know who's appointed to the associate justice seat; that's because there'd be the possibility of a new majority on certain issues, and with that new majority, Roberts as chief justice would probably be in that majority and would designate who writes the majority opinion. If he doesn't watch it, he could end up with pluralities instead of majorities, because justices won't want to join in majorities when their positions are misrepresented by the majority opinion, seeing as how Roberts wants to cut back on the number of concurring opinions for the sake of expediency.