WHO IS THIS GUY?

WHO IS THIS GUY?
Compared to some nominations to the Supreme Court George Bush could have made, John Roberts is not some right wing lightning that would be followed with immediate and loud Democratic thunder.  Roberts hasn’t made as many overt statements that opponents can challenge and hold up, but he is against Roe. His views toward the balance between the individual, business, and the state can be found if you know where to look for it.  You will hear again and again that Roberts is qualified. Whether the Democrats have the numbers or the fortitude to fight this nomination and not be viewed as “obstructionists” is another matter. 

Bush is vulnerable on many fronts right now: the Valerie Plame questions will only grow louder, the blood in Iraq and the deception in the lead up to the war revealed in the Downing Street Memos is seeping into the national consciousness.  The Supreme Court nomination process will draw attention away from Bush’s problems. Whether the country is ready for some solutions John Roberts might offer remains to be seen.  If the Democrats are to block Roberts’s nomination, a strategy that could work would be to focus on the not so nice consequences of  this Mr. Right, Mister Nice Guy.  If the Democrats were to block Roberts, they would be branded nightly as “obstructionists” and Bush could come back with something worse.

PREVIOUS HERETIK POST: [BUSH NAMES ROBERTS]

RECOMMENDED READING
[NY TIMES] . . .the Democrats' difficulty is that it is hardly clear, at least based on his judicial record to date, that Mr. Roberts would be in the mold of Antonin Scalia . . . Mr. Roberts has the resume of a member of the Washington legal establishment. . . the youthful Mr. Roberts displayed an easygoing and nonthreatening personality that will make it difficult for opponents to demonize him unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.

[LAW.COM]To anyone watching for the first time, Roberts barely made an impression . . . . Roberts, with 20 months on the D.C. Circuit, has few opinions or other writings that have attracted enemies. As a result, some conservatives have made unflattering comparisons between Roberts and Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whose short stint on the 1st Circuit before being appointed in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush failed to reveal Souter's moderate-to-liberal leanings on some issues.
Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.

[PAM'S HOUSE BLEND] If it's one thing that Bush has taught us, it's to surround yourself with yes men and party hacks. The Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts is no exception. The man worked for Ken Starr, for crying out loud, and participated in the Bush vs. Gore case that ended the recount of the 2000 election - handing the presidency to Bush. Take a look at this and connect the dots -- Roberts career has been full of political hackery and associations -- he's an inside-the-Beltway guy (NYT graphic):

[NORBIZNESS] Enjoy him until the year 2035. No use in trying to block him, I suppose. As for the people who thought that the President wouldn't nominate a young, lifelong conservative who believes in unlimited executive power and limited legislative power...

[IMPOLITIC] What does it all mean? Not a bloody thing. As was so amply demonstrated in the recent Kelo and Raich decisions, you can judge the nominees by their history but in practical terms, you may as well be using tarot cards to figure out how they're going to rule once they sit on the bench.

[BAGnewsNOTES] According to the most recent NYT Magazine cover story, the Democrats have improved their ability to frame language to shape the political debate. What I can't understand, however, is why the "framing war" seems to be confined to words.  What about pictures?  In introducing Bush's first Supreme Court nominee, why is it that John Roberts' highly flattering D.C. Court of Appeals head shot ended up as suitable for Salon, Wonkette and Huffington as it was for Drudge and The NYPost? 

[COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW] Paul McCleary has a nice round up of media and blog view, and The Heretik is noted for as having "stayed away from any grand ideological pronouncements." Thanks, Paul. Grand ideological pronouncements to follow.  


SEND ME YOUR LINKS ON WHAT YOU THINK MATTERS IN MATTERS SUPREME
 

Comments

[ol cranky]

His wife is a parnter at Shawn Pittman - one stop shopping at rebuilding Iraq.

[Aaron]

Although I'm skeptical of any one sitting on the Supreme Court with so little judicial experience, I think this was far and away the best pick that George Bush could have made, given his limited choices.

Ideology aside, John Roberts impresses me with the caliber of his mind. A true scholar, his successful record of arguments before the Supreme Court speaks volumes about his abilities. Likely Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were both intimidated by the power of his logic when he argued before them. In comparison they are both mental midgets.

Unfortunately, given the underhanded, secretive and stealth tactics of the Bush administration, it's quite possible that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Someone who pretends to be one thing in order to advance their career, while hiding their true self. We'll see.

That said, I think he will be easily confirmed, especially considering his credentials and the fact that there is no one that the Bush machine could nominate who would be more acceptable to either side. While he appears to have some antichoice leanings, there's no knowing whether his ideology will influence his decisions on the bench, I hope not.

But if he shows the ethical structure which his background suggests, those on the right will be sorely disappointed. Because he'll be siding with Souter, a true judicial scholar, every time and quietly laughing at Scalia and Thomas, the way smart people always laugh at the feeble arguments of their underlings. If so look for him to make Chief Justice someday.

[Randy Bull]

I think that the influence of the Court is overestimated. Senator Susan Collins point out the other day that the real battle over Roberts is going to be between special interest groups. These groups have to do battle to justify their existance and to keep the funds flowing in. One of the reasons the religious right has been proclaiming victory is to demonstrate to the folks writing checks that they are in the game. Yet, they don't have a clue how Roberts will rule or dissent when he joins the gang at SCOTUS.

I have a post up on Word Have Power that offers the following from Rosa Brooks (University of Virginia law professor):

"Supreme Court decisions are more of a mirror than a catalyst, reflecting public opinion far more than they shift it. This shouldn't surprise us; Supreme Court justices, like the rest of us, are influenced by shifting social mores. And they know that the court's institutional credibility — and ability to get its decisions enforced — depends on not getting too far ahead of the curve."

http://whpsocal.blogspot.com/2005/07/scotus-is-mirror-not-searchlight.html