John Roberts is Bush Pick for SCOTUS

[publius]

rockjock: One thing to consider regarding Roe v. Wade is that if it is overturned, that will effectively move it to the state level and I think any attempt by Congress to pass a partial-birth abortion ban will be dead on the same grounds (not addressed by the Constitution, therefore no federal authority).

When they passed such a ban, they found the authority in the same place they always do: interstate commerce. That's right, just like being near a school with a gun, or rape, or possession of kiddie porn, or a homegrown cannabis plant, or a homegrown machine gun. All interstate commerce.

Hawkeye: So if he is truly a predictable conservative, he will exhibit judicial temperament, which is what we want, i.e., he will not be a judicial activist, and will enforce the Constitution. Since the Constitution is a conservative document, that favors the conservative cause. Conservatism equals good government.

Actually, there is a distinct difference these days between a conservative and a strict constructionist. A conservative says, "We've done it this way for 50 years, this is how it is, period." A strict constructionist says, "What we're doing is not covered by any intended meaning of the document."

 

[BeLikeTrey]

also carefully optimistic...

But I like the toad statement. I like a sharp wit (sign of an intelligent and pensive man) I also agree with the interstate commerce reform that the toad argument seems to hint at
The Federalistgroup is encouraging too. I guess wait and see....

 

[71Commander]

Is there a second amendment issue that's working its way to the SC? I don't see the 2nd as a deciding factor. Both the Dems and Rep. don't want a armed populist and any ruling would be against us anyway.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From the Forum Rules link in the upper right hand corner of your screen:

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately.

LawDog has already made one warning that this particular forum is not the place to discuss Roe v. Wade or abortion. There are endless forums on the Internet where you can have that debate and it will be welcomed. This is not one of those forums.

 

[El Tejon]

I hope for another Scalia or Thomas, I fear another Souter or Kennedy.

He is from Indiana (Long Beach on Lake Michigan), but has lived out there a long time. I fear he may take that culture to heart.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, I don't see how Roberts will avoid a confirmation fight considering the Democrats in the Senate blocked him the first time he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court. He might have ultimately passed through the Senate with a unaninmous non-roll call vote; but I don't think it will go down that way this time.

Several prominent special interest groups had already vowed to try and filibuster this particular judge before he had even been named as a nominee.

I haven't been able to find anything about him on the Second Amendment - though the Volokh Conspiracy seems to think highly of the nomination.

 

[publius]

Sorry for breaking the forum rules there. I was trying to discuss interstate commerce. I can't help it if that covers, as Justice Thomas said, "virtually anything."

 

[Bruce H]

This is just the first pick. Doesn't look too bad. As far as Janice Rogers
Brown is concerned she will be the next chief justice.

 

[beerslurpy]

Sorry about the abortion post. I really went overboard a lot of times last night.

 

[foghornl]

Kennedy, Shumer and Durbin.

If those 3 [ahem] Senators don't like Roberts, then he must be a good guy for us....

 

[RealGun]

You won't find gun precedent if courts rigorously avoid those cases.

My suggestion would be to encourage Senators to ask gun questions during the hearings. Good luck.

 

[Silver Bullet]

During the months prior to the election, there were certain members here either attempting to blur the differences between Bush and Kerry or were smugly claiming to “vote their consciences” by voting third party. Most of us tried to explain to you the differences between the parties and the potential cost of voting third party at the Presidential level. One argument in particular we mentioned many times was the importance of not letting the Democrats pick the next Justices. Interestingly, I never heard a rebuttal to that argument; the naysayers ignored it, and rambled on about how Bush wasn’t doing this or Bush wasn’t doing that; he wasn’t endorsing the Second strongly enough (but he picked an AG who did) and he had a campaign promise to sign the AWB if it came across his desk (but he didn’t push for its passage like some presidents would have done). And he made mistakes: signing the McCain-Feingold bill is the worst.

And now we’ve arrived: Bush has nominated a judge who looks very promising. Thankfully, most of us voted for Bush. If we voted for Kerry and Kerry had won, who do you think would be nominated right now ? If we voted Third Party and Kerry had won, who do you think would be nominated right now ?

So, a big thanks to all of you who stayed the course, saw through all the smoke, and focused on the bigger picture. For the rest of you, I’m hoping you will learn from this and apply the lessons next election.

 

[GT]

+1 for the Bullet.

http://soapbox.townhall.com/story/2005/7/19/20652/3114
From Tim Chapman at Townhall.com:

When asked about his judicial philosophy by Chuck Schumer, Roberts responded:

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Deciding the case . . . . requires an essential humility grounded in the properly limited role of an undemocratic judiciary in a democratic republic, a humility reflected in doctrines of deference to legislative policy judgments and embodied in the often misunderstood term “judicial restraint.” That restraint does not mean that judges should not act against the popular will. . . .[T]he framers expected them to be discerning the law, not shaping policy. That means the judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose those preferences from the bench.

When asked about "judicial activism" Roberts responded:

to refer to a judge who has transgressed the limited role assigned to the judicial branch under the Constitution, and has either undertaken to exercise the legislative function by imposing his own personal policy preferences under the guise of legal interpretation, or has arrogated to himself the executive function by imposing his policy views on how the law should be administered.

Now tell me what is wrong with that?
Isn't that the Follower of Original Intent that we were looking for?

G

 

[No_Brakes23]

Bush wasn’t doing that; he wasn’t endorsing the Second strongly enough (but he picked an AG who did)

And how is Gonzales, who supported the AWB renew a pro-2a AG?

And for all you spouting that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" nonsense, remember that just cause a Dem doesn't like the guy doesn't mean he is pro 2a.

While I too take heart in the fact that toads like Kennedy, Durbin, and Schumer oppose him, that does not make him a de facto good choice.

 

[RealGun]

If those 3 [ahem] Senators don't like Roberts, then he must be a good guy for us.... - foghornl

Exactly! I have been looking around to find statements pro or con from various advocacy groups. What I think of the opinion depends upon what I think of the source.

However, the Democrats do actually tend to defend some things I care about, in contrast to head strong, social conservatives. I am open minded to some of the challenging questions that may be posed to any nominee. An undignified, prosecutorial tone or an emotional and embarassing rant will rob any argument of its underlying merit (What a jerk!...What a bitch!), so I hope they all keep their heads on straight and conduct hearings that are remotely admirable.

 

[RealGun]

So, a big thanks to all of you who stayed the course, saw through all the smoke, and focused on the bigger picture. For the rest of you, I’m hoping you will learn from this and apply the lessons next election. - Silver Bullet

I fully support your points. I would just add that it would be helpful to have an issue hit list, attacking the gun control pyramid from its base, while acknowledging how the game must be played.

Federal power seems to rest primarily in the income tax and the legal meaning of interstate commerce. For starters, I would recommend that State appropriations or tax free status may not include conditions for compliance with some federal law.

 

[Kurush]

A couple more mind-boggling DU quotes:

Looks like a wild-eyed child molester to me

Bush** had not one but two opportunities to do something resembling the right thing: name Alberto Gonzales as the Court's first Latino (albeit a pro-torture one), or name Edith Clement so as to keep two women on the Court.

But you know Bush** is always going to choose the right wing over the right thing.

All white guys look alike.

This is the whitest guy I have ever seen in my life. I first heard the annoucement on the radio and after hearing what his past educational and judicial history was and also him talking and thanking the BARBARAs and JACKs in his family I could feel the WASPiness seeping through the speakers in my car. Lord he is white.

But I thought the AP was on *Our* side?

Reading your link, looks like they are trying to sell more stories to the onlines sites like google & yahoo, and avoid the repetition, no?

I thought AP was a good guy.

You really couldn't make this stuff up...

 

[Lone_Gunman]

At this point, there is no reason to support or oppose Roberts. I am wary of him, though not necessarily skeptical.

He sounds good on the surface, but hasn't been on the record enough to know how he will do. Plus, remember it is more likely for a SC justice to become more liberal than more conservative over time.

I will support Roberts for now, whether that is still the case in 10 yrs depends on how he does once he gets there. I would have liked it better if Bush had picked someone that was a little more of a known commodity. But he may work out ok.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I want Janice Brown too. Maybe next time she will be his pick. I sure hope so. She is a real conservative/strict constructionist/originalist.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Actually, there is a distinct difference these days between a conservative and a strict constructionist. A conservative says, "We've done it this way for 50 years, this is how it is, period." A strict constructionist says, "What we're doing is not covered by any intended meaning of the document."

Actually, there are a couple of ways conservatives have been identified. One (and the least legitimate) is that he just wants to preserve the status quo, stare decisis, and is therefore an advocate of preserving (conserving) the New Deal and all the rest. I don't mean it that way. When I say conservative, I mean someone who actively resists the leftist/judicial activist turn the Supreme Court has taken since the Great Depression, and wishes to restore the supremacy of the actual Constitution, which is a conservative document, i.e., a "movement conservative." I suppose you could call that reactionary, or counter revolutionary, if you like. I call it conservative. I don't see how anyone who defends the leftist mess we've been in for the last 60 years could in any sense be called a conservative, except in the same sense that the leftist press used to call Brezhnev a "conservative," i.e., he wanted to "conserve" the status quo in the Soviet Union. That's way too shallow a definition of "conservative."

 

[dolanp]

It's funny how the DU trolls' only criteria is that it should be someone in the minority (gender, race, etc). Yeah it would be nice if more women were active in our political system, but that should never be the first condition of finding somebody to fill a spot. Of course they hail affirmative action as the greatest thing ever so go figure.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Quote: Bush wasn’t doing that; he wasn’t endorsing the Second strongly enough (but he picked an AG who did)

And how is Gonzales, who supported the AWB renew a pro-2a AG?

Actually, I believe he was referring to NRA Board of Director member John Ashcroft who was the first AG for Bush. Besides being the first Attorney General that was chosen by the President, Ashcroft also said pretty much the exact same things as Gonzales about the AWB renewal during his confirmation hearings before the Senate. Ashcroft even said much worse things than Gonzales indicating he would support gun registration and all manner of gun control if Congress passed such laws.

Despite that Ashcroft went on to remove the attempts to store NICS information on legitimate purchases that had been instituted by Clinton and laid an extremely strong groundwork to support an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment by changing the prevailing Justice Department interpretation of that part of the Constitution and providing the scholarly research to support it.

 

[countertop]

And how is Gonzales, who supported the AWB renew a pro-2a AG?

He was talking about Ashcroft who is as pro 2nd Amendment as they come.

LawDog has already made one warning that this particular forum is not the place to discuss Roe v. Wade or abortion. There are endless forums on the Internet where you can have that debate and it will be welcomed. This is not one of those forums.

Sorry for my over the top discussion last night, but I disagree that there should be a ban on any discussion of abortion. Reasonable people can disagree and if we keep the bigger picture in sight - namely, our RKBA, then we should be able to have a mature conversation about the ultimate impacts of Rove, et al on that right.

As I explained last night (or at least attempted to, rereading it now shows it to be a feable attempt) the right to privacy that gun owners rely on did not evolve out of the Griswold/Rove cases, but rather existed seperately from them. However, to the extent that most discussions of privacy now center around the abortion/gay rights debates - its almost impossible to avoid their discussion as we continue to fight bans on firearm registries, etc.

 

[LawDog]

Sorry for my over the top discussion last night, but I disagree that there should be a ban on any discussion of abortion. Reasonable people can disagree and if we keep the bigger picture in sight - namely, our RKBA, then we should be able to have a mature conversation about the ultimate impacts of Rove, et al on that right.

You would think so, but prior experiences on THR and several years experience prior to the formation of THR at TFL we have found that this is not the case.

So. No discussion of abortion.

LawDog

 

[atk]

GoRon,

Please deaden that link - make it require a cut&paste. Creating active links to forums like DU sometimes causes forum wars - not something I think we really want.