Bush Nominates Roberts As Chief Justice
 

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on Oct. 3.

The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court's top job a man who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices.

"I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me," Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office. "I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years."

"He's a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he's inspired the respect and loyalty of others," Bush said. "John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others. in his extraordinary career."

The selection of Roberts, who has drawn little criticism, helps Bush avoid new political problems when he already is under fire for the government's sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and the president's approval ratings are sagging.

Getting a new chief justice of Bush's choosing in place quickly also avoids the scenario of having liberal Justice John Paul Stevens making the decisions about whom to assign cases to and making other decisions that could influence court deliberations. As the court's senior justice, Stevens would take over Rehnquist's administrative duties until a new chief is confirmed.

"The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty, just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes," Bush said. "It's in the interest of the court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term."

Bush said Roberts has been closely scrutinized since he was nominated as an associate justice and that Americans "like what they see. He is a gentleman. He is a man of integrity and fairness." He said Roberts has unusual experience, having argued 39 cases as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Bush also said Roberts was a natural leader.

The move was engineered to have all nine seats on the high court filled when the court opens its fall term.

for full article...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_su_co/scotus

Looks like roe vs wade is doomed.

I don't really keep up with this, but woudn't it make more sense to "promote" someone who has already been on the Supreme Court for awhile to Chief Justice? Since they already have experience being on the "high court"?

John Roberts is the new guy, isn't he?

I think someone else from the court needs to be nominated for Chief Justice. Roberts needs some experience under his belt before he gets that job, IMO.

Just don't let Clarence Thomas be nominated.

According to the story I read, the "promotion" path is pretty rare. The justice being promoted would have to have another set of confirmation hearings, and someone still would have to be nominated to fill the associate justice position. Three sets of hearings instead of two.

Only 3 of the 16 chief justices have been promoted from the high court.

Doing it this way seems to make the most sense for the President (in that it saves a confirmation hearing), plus it seems like he wanted Roberts for Chief Justice all along. He just never expected O'Connor to retire before Rehnquist died.

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." — Roberts, during the confirmation hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...w090602D23.DTL)

I also think it's too early to declare Roe v. Wade "doomed," although I'm not surprised that you used that wording.

At the risk of sounding like an airhead, I think John Roberts is really, really good looking.

My democratic sister claims that he was nominated as part of a "Republican conspiracy to lure more women to the dark side", but has conceded that he is, indeed, a cutie.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court

Roberts gives his response after being asked about the abortion issue on the second day of confirmation hearings...

So there that is - can we stop with the Chicken Little action now?

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent," as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

"It's settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Ok, not to sound like a dumbass or anything here... But I just don't understand some of these legal terms. Can someone please explain what exactly he is saying? Does he agree with Roe v. Wade or would he rather see abortion made illegal? I have heard a lot about him recently, but it all seems to be getting jumbled together.

Ok, just found this on MSN. It helps a little bit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9175162/

Roberts fields questions on abortion, power
Nominee tells Specter overturning settled law ‘a jolt to the legal system’


Updated: 11:06 a.m. ET Sept. 13, 2005
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court” as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

“It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” the concept that long-settled decisions should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Roberts, however, declined to discuss his views on Roe v. Wade, twice dodging answering specific questions from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., saying that there are abortion-related cases on the court’s docket But Roberts called the concept of legal precedent a “very important consideration.”

On the second day of his confirmation hearings, President Bush’s choice for the nation’s 17th chief justice said that as of 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the high court has emphasized the principles that had been settled for years.

Precedent defended
“It’s entitled to respect under those principles,” Roberts said. “I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent. It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided.”

In his writings, Roberts has argued that the Roe v. Wade decision by the high court had been wrongly decided.

Troy Newman, leader of Operation: Rescue, said anti-abortion activists weren’t surprised by Roberts’ comments Tuesday but would watch him closely.

“We’re concerned about these statements, but the proof will come when it’s time for him to rule on these cases as a justice,” Newman said.

Roberts also dismissed any suggestion that his Catholic faith would influence his decisions if he was confirmed to be the nation’s 17th chief justice. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.

Specter cited President Kennedy’s statement in September 1960 that he did speak for his church on public matters and the church did not speak for him.

“I agree with that, Senator, yes,” Roberts said.

Stare decisis explained
“There’s nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said.

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by a decision” and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

Questioned about rights of privacy, the appellate judge cited various amendments of the Constitution that he said protect those rights, and said, “I do think the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.”

If I read that article correctly, it's a fancy way to say "No comment."

Not really - I see it more as that he'll respect it as precedent and not seek to overturn it.

Rob, hopefully you're right and the chicken little talk goes out the window.

I find his references to stare decisis to be particularly meaningful, considerably more so than 'no comment.'

Agreed. It's obviously hard to say what he thinks when he can't answer what he thinks of it flat-out, but it seems like he at least respects the decision of the court and won't attempt to change it.

I agree that he is probably not going to directly overturn Roe and that he does respect the fact that our country has had legalized abortion. I don't think he's looking to return to the old days of criminalized abortion. However, Planned Parenthood v. Casey rather than Roe is the prevailing case. Roberts has made repeated reference to Casey and its role as the standard by which the USSC should view any limitations on abortion. I do not trust that he and the new court will interpret "undue burden" as widely as the court has so far. He could strip women in this country of much of their access to abortion without overturning Roe. That still concerns me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/15/op...brooks.html?hp

September 15, 2005
Ready? Cue the Sun...
By DAVID BROOKS
Arlen Specter Welcome to Day 3 of the confirmation hearings of John Roberts. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the nation of what a wonderful job I'm doing chairing this committee, and I'd like to let the ranking member tell me so.

Patrick Leahy Absolutely, Mr. Chairman! And let me kick off this morning's platitudes about the grandeur of our Constitution by quoting its first three words, "We the People." That means that here in America the people rule - except on issues like abortion, where their opinions don't mean spit.

Specter Very well put, Senator Leahy! And welcome Judge Roberts back before our committee.

John Roberts Jr. Aw, shucks. This has been a humbling experience, Mr. Chairman. To think that a boy from an exclusive prep school and Harvard Law could grow up and be nominated for the Supreme Court - it shows how in America it's possible to rise from privilege to power! That's the hallmark of our great nation.

So while, of course, I can't talk about specific cases, or any emotions, weather patterns or sandwich meats that may come before the Supreme Court at any time between now and my death in 2048, I do want to reiterate that I feel humbled by this experience. I feel humbled that my wife is dozing off behind me. I feel humbled by this committee's inability to lay a glove on me. And I feel modest. You see this suit? I skinny-dip in this suit. That's how modest I feel.

Tom Coburn Well put, Judge Roberts. Yet when I think of the polarization that still divides this great nation ... waaaahhhh ... waaaahhhh. (Senator Coburn breaks down weeping.)

Jeff Sessions This may be a good moment to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that in this country unelected judges don't write the laws. We have unelected lobbyists to do that. Under our system, judges merely interpret the law and decide presidential elections.

Specter Senator Sessions, let me interrupt you right there. We're not here to argue among ourselves and ignore the nominee. We're here to deliver 30-minute speeches disguised as questions and ignore the nominee. So let me turn to Senator Bid - -

Coburn And when I think of the flaws in the reconciliation process! And the gerrymandering! Oh, the suffering! Oh, the humanity! Waaaahhhh ... waaaahhhh. (Senator Coburn collapses and is taken back to his office on a stretcher.)

Specter As I was saying, Senator Biden, you have the floor.

Joseph Biden Jr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought this might be a good moment to give the committee a complete history of my heroic sponsorship of the Violence Against Women Act, but before I do that I'd like to interrupt myself by mentioning that I ride the train every day, often speaking with regular Americans, but before I do that I'd like to interrupt my interruption of myself by asking the chairman to restrain the nominee. During my first round of questioning, the nominee continually interrupted my questions by trying to give answers. I could barely keep up my train of thought on stare decisis.

Edward Kennedy Starry De Cysis? Didn't she do a fan dance down at that old burlesque house in Providence?

Roberts Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't mean to draw attention to myself, for, as I have said, judges are like umpires - not home plate umpires, but those umpires stuck way out by the right-field foul pole. Nobody ever went to a game to watch the umpires.

But as you know, Judge Ginsburg, during her confirmation hearing, had herself wrapped in duct tape for fear that any involuntary reflex gestures she might make would mar her impartiality in deciding cases later on. Following her example, I have decided to spend the rest of these hearings in a soundproof booth, sunk in a tank of ravenous sharks and accompanied only by the illusionist David Copperfield. But before I go into isolation, I would like to mention the intense modesty I feel at this moment, notwithstanding the fact that not a single one of you slobs could have charged $700 an hour the way I did in private practice.

Richard Durbin Judge Roberts, before you go, one of the ways we in the Senate prove our superior souls is by emoting mawkish sentimentality on cue. Would you please emote sadness and pain on behalf of politically powerful but downtrodden groups?

Roberts I am emoting, senator.

-Rudey

Personally, I thought Roberts did a good job during the hearings and came off well.

Unlike the committee members from both sides of the aisle.

Like some of the pundits I've heard, I'm more concerned about who is nominated to replace Justice O'Connor.

Bush Nominates First-Trimester Fetus To Supreme Court

September 14, 2005 | Issue 41•37

WASHINGTON, DC—In a press conference Monday, President Bush named a 72-day-old gestating fetus as his nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat that opened following the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Enlarge ImageBush Nominates First-Trimester Fetus To Supreme Court

"Already, this experienced and capable embryo has demonstrated during his or her in utero existence a deep commitment to the core principles of the Constitution," Bush said. "It is with great pride that I nominate this unborn American patriot to the highest court in the land."

If confirmed by Congress, the bean-sized vertebrate would be the nation's first prenatal Supreme Court justice.

The unnamed fetus, who made headlines only three weeks ago when he or she was appointed to the Virginia State Supreme Court after working at a private law practice for five hours, has enjoyed a meteoric career in American jurisprudence. A remarkable prodigy who graduated from Georgetown Law School mere days after his or her neural folds fused, the nominee reportedly shares much of the conservative, pro-business philosophy of the Bush White House.

Nevertheless, Capitol Hill sources say that his or her nomination comes as a surprise. Legal observers had anticipated that Bush would name a prominent conservative like Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, or the second-trimester female fetus that heads the legal department of Molson Coors Brewing Company, or former Solicitor General Theodore Olson.

"The fetus's judicial record, though extremely limited, is quite impressive," said Carolyn Scuitto, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University. "Last week, it authored a majority opinion overturning an appellate court ruling that found that a Virginia-based insurance company had insufficiently disclosed rate increases to its customers."

Scuitto added: "Bear in mind that the judge has fingerless stubs for arms and still sports traces of a tail."

The fetus first attracted attention several days after making its way up the fallopian tubes to the uterus, when it authored an opinion piece critical of class-action lawsuits for The Legal Intelligencer. In the article, he or she addressed conflicting opinions about the nature of blame and responsibility, and argued for reforms that would check plaintiff attorney conduct.

The nominee's positions on capital punishment, gun control, and abortion are still unknown.

Unborn advocacy groups are applauding Bush's choice.

"We couldn't be happier with the president's selection," said M118-P, the unfertilized ovum spokesglobule for Gametes United For Pre-Life, based in Montgomery, AL. "The unborn and preconceived alike have long been underrepresented on the bench."

Despite his or her relative lack of courtroom experience, experts believe the nominee stands a good to excellent chance of confirmation.

"With its precocious intelligence and adorable pocket size, the fetus could very well prove to be the moderate 'consensus candidate' many on Capitol Hill have hoped for," said attorney, author, and Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz. "And with its confirmation to a lifetime appointment on the bench, Bush ensures that his presidential legacy will last until about 2089."

He's just been confirmed.