48 Comments

1. flenser:

I think I can safely predict that we will have a brutal and divisive SC battle, although it won’t be this one.

Following this on the conservative blogs today, the mood is pretty happy. Much wailing and knashing of teeth over at Kos and DU.

The Rehnquist replacement will be tougher, and the probable Souter/Ginsberg/Stevens replacement will be a war like you have never seen.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:34 pm 2. dewaun:

After finding that John Roberts served in Reagan’s White House help some of the Conservatices. Noting that his opinions were more in line with Sandra Day O’Connor should help some of the Moderates/Centrists. At worst, we’ll get someone similar to O’Connor. If conservatives are lucky, they’ll get at least another Rehnquist.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:35 pm 3. richard mcenroe:

I’m telling Edmund Burke you said that.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:42 pm 4. flenser:

The Rehnquist analogy sounds right. He clerked for Rehnquist, and one view is that this is the Rehnquist replacement, moved up, and the O’Connor replacement will come when Rehnquist steps down. And will probably be someone like Owen or Edith Jones.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:46 pm 5. David Thomson:

Hugh Hewitt is a friend of Judge John Roberts. He says that the man is a solid conservative. That’s good enough for me. The country is indeed at war. Iím sure that Roberts agrees with Judge Robert Jackson that the constitution is not a suicide pact. Many liberal jurists canít see to comprehend this most important point.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:46 pm 6. Gerry:

Roger,

“But I gather some conservatives are upset.”

By my count, there are at least two who are. Out of several million. Fuck ‘em.

This conservative is giddy happy.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:49 pm 7. vnjagvet:

Some people are never satisfied. This is a superb pick.

From all I hear, Judge Roberts is, first of all a great human being.

Second, he clerked for two of the better jurists of recent memory, Judge Friendly of the Second Circuit and Justice Rehnquist.

Third, he was the “go to” guy in the Reagan/Bush Solicitor General’s, and is a great craftsman.

Fourth, he has had a distinguished private appellate practice, representing a varied clientelle.

Fifth he has been on the D.C. Circuit for two years, having been confirmed nearly unanimously.

Sixth, he will slice and dice the likes of Schumer, Biden, Kennedy, Leahy and Durbin and they won’t even know they were nicked.

And last but not least, he will be a persuasive Justice for a constitutional jurisprudence of which conservatives will be proud.

No filibuster, confirmation in time for the next term. What’s not to like for Roger’s gang and the Pajamablogset? Sanity without the kook factor.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:51 pm 8. Gerry:

My guess re: Glenn’s emailer– not a conservative, but either a poser, or one of those right-anarchists (minarchists? anarcho-capitalists?) who are anything but conservative, even if they are anything but leftist.

Take a look for yourself at the blogs of the right. I see glee.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:51 pm 9. flenser:

Beldar likes him;

As a blogger, a lawyer, a conservative, a conservative lawyer-blogger, and the father of two french fry-eating girls ages ten and fourteen, I enthusiastically support Judge Roberts’ nomination. And I thank and commend President Bush for a superb choice that does indeed keep the promises he made in both of his presidential campaigns.

Dittos from Powerline.

I think I know the “unhappy cnservative” being cited above, and he is a constant complainer. John Derbyshire is a wild-eyed optimist by comparision.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:53 pm 10. David Thomson:

ìMany liberal jurists canít see to comprehend this most important point.î

Should read: Many liberal jurists canít seem to comprehend this most important point.

Here are Hugh Hewittís own words:

http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1821

Yes, Iím sure that Judge Roberts isnít going to indulge in finding ìemanations and penumbraî in the text of our Constitution.

Jul 19, 2005 - 8:57 pm 11. mcg:

Roger,

Have to disagree with you here. If we can’t multitask as a country—that is, deal with a war as well as other important issues—then we are frankly doomed. Thankfully, we can multitask.

And many of us conservatives feel that, while the WOT was certainly the most important issue on the table in 2004, the judicial system was a strong second place.

Having said that, both you and the conservative naysayers are wrong about Roberts. He is a fine conservative, one that will provoke a fight. And yet, he is a brilliant choice, because he will provke far less of a fight than another person of his conservative ilk, because of his impeccable reputation.

Bottom line, Bush outmaneuvered the Dems here with this choice. They will whine and moan but this guy will get a vote. And he will prove to be a valuable member of the judiciary.

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:15 pm 12. mcg:

When I said that you were both wrong, BTW, I didn’t mean for the same reasons. For you, it is because this could provoke a fight, and Bush is entitled to engage in one, and I think he should if necessary. (Though as I said I think it will be less of one than it could have been.)

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:17 pm 13. someone:

If anyone knows anyone’s judicial leanings, a judge knows his clerk.

Rehnquist wanted Roberts. That’s good enough for me.

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:17 pm 14. Luther McLeod:

I think you have a very good point Roger, “the preservation of Western Civilization?.” That is why I voted for GWB, and bottom line, for no other reason. Not to say that in the last four years I have not become more tolerant of, and in many cases, have embraced a number of traditional Republican concerns. Not to say that the Dem’s put forth the absolute worst possible candidate, for me, personally, to vote for. But, as you say, the war is the focus. We need no domestic distractions. Besides, there are no sure things re: Court appointments, as ( I think ) every President in the last fifty or so years has learned. Stay on track, win the war. But I do think the President seems to have made a smart decision and a good choice.

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:20 pm 15. Kevin P:

Roger:

The Dems are desperate. Shumer says he must answer questions. Roberts will qoute SCOTUS member Ruth Bader Ginsburg words about answereing specific questions about specific rulings avd future cases. “He has only twenty months on the court.” Thats because the Dems blocked him in 1992. He would have had a 13 year record you could have looked over if you had not kept him out. The Senate approved his circuit court nomination 100 to 0 and now they are going to try say he falls under the extrodinary circumstances clause. “He is no O’Connor”. Well he argued 39 cases in front of the SCOTUS, won most of them(I think 76% and that is one of the highest around today) and O’Connor voted with Roberts on most of them.

The slime machine is gearing up. Tavis Smilley has Anita Hill coming on his show tonight. What a shock! But Roberts will get in. If the Dems are smart they will raise a fuss in the Judiciary but let him thru and then vote on party lines, a Bush win. If they are stupid, which is not out of the realm of possibilities, they will fillibuster Roberts and lose that tool to block Bush’s next pick. Roberts is clean, there are no skeletons, and he will be the next man on SCOTUS. The only thing left to decide is how moronic the Dems will be.

Kevin Peters

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:25 pm 16. Sally-O:

Conservatives are upset? I don’t think so, Roger. Take a tour of conservative blogs and sites and tell me they’re upset.

Glenn gets an e-mail from somebody–Moby for all we know–and he posts it, and then you cue off that to say that some conservatives are upset?

I’m sure some are, actually–what action would ensure universal delight? So you’re narrowly correct, I suppose. But in the same way that some Iraqis, according to the NYT’s man on the street interviews, pine for the good old days of Saddam.

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:36 pm 17. flenser:

So who leaked that false rumour about Clement? Sounds like we need a special prosocutor to investigate.

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:37 pm 18. Roger:

Sally-O, I stand chastised. (See… bloggers do self-correct.)

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:41 pm 19. flenser:

From DU, via LGF;

on the bright side Bush could?ve nominated a giant demon from the ninth ring of hell that literally devoured trees and homosexuals to survive and defecated toxic waste by the lakefull.

I understand Rove was pushing for the demon, but Bush wanted to reach out to the enviro vote, and felt that deforestation was a poor move at this time.

Jul 19, 2005 - 9:57 pm 20. Kevin P:

Flenser:

Of course Bush is waiting for the next opening before he nominates Satan and reveals his plan for the wall to wall cementing of America and a oil well on every corner. And of course putting every Homosexual at Gitmo. Of course that will entail invading Cuba and removing all the natives so the entire island can be turned into a prison. details will be sent to you in a couple of months. Hush, Hush.

Kevin Peters

Jul 19, 2005 - 10:22 pm 21. Dave Johnston:

Roger says: “Now I admit I’m a centrist (or more precisely someone who is bored silly by people who identify with 18th Century ideologies and prefers to think for himself)…”

Exactly. I’ve already been taken to task by a few fellow libertarians who don’t like the pick. After a few chimed in over at Reason on how Roberts could possibly be a “big statist,” it seems many ran with it.

Right, left, center…I wish more folks would take the approach that you’ve got to be pragmatic on SCOTUS nominations. You’ve never going to get the “total package candidate” – you’ve got to weigh the pros v. cons.

But that doesn’t mean I’m not entertained (at least for a few minutes) by the hysteria of the left.

DJ

Jul 19, 2005 - 10:29 pm 22. Sally-O:

And so Roger proves what we already knew–that he is a gentleman and a scholar.

Jul 19, 2005 - 10:31 pm 23. flenser:

I’ll have to differ with Rodger on his seeming suggestion that the Court, and courts, are not a key arena in the War.

Read here for a detaled discussion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507080758.asp

Jul 19, 2005 - 10:40 pm 24. flenser:

Ack!!

I meant “Roger”, of course.

Jul 19, 2005 - 10:42 pm 25. Roger:

flenser, I agree the Andrew McCarthy piece you link is very interesting (as are most of his). You will note my inital post was in opposition to “some conservatives” who, it now appears, may have been pretty much straw men or certainly not representative. I would think Roberts, from what little I know of him, would eaily meet McCarthy’s criteria on the war issue. And this is indeed good.

Jul 19, 2005 - 10:59 pm 26. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

Far be it for me to advise Dems these days, besides they aren’t thinking straight so it really doesn’t matter, but I will nonetheless. First I must say that strategically this pick is absolutely brilliant and leaves only one option for Democrats (if they are sane). This in turn would leave the Republicans with only one counter strategy (other then letting the chips fall where they may).

For Democrats they should be magnanimous with this pick and act as if to give the nominee benefit of a doubt and confirm him since he will be confirmed. They should then very quickly bring a case to the Supreme court testing the Roe decision or any Abortion decision (partial-birth etc.) testing the new composition of the court. If Roberts proves to change the composition of the court then Democrats will have much more capital during the next nomination to go to War as many pro-choice moderates will be more amenable to polarization when such a day arrives. This leads to the Republicans pre-emption.

The Republican solution (other then letting the chips fall where they may) is for Rehnquist to step down very soon before such challenges occur. This would give them the chance of replacing O’Conner and Rehnquist with two Rehnquist’s. Now either way in the event of Bush having the opportunity for a third choice, I would fully expect to see the Democrats force Republicans to go nuclear if they think the nominee is a Conservative, mainstream or not, because three selections will be too much for them to accept, especially if they feel they have already been rolled twice.

Roger as far as unacceptable to conservatives (I see you added a correction on this point), however I have lived in Washington my whole life and witnessed many judicial selections by both sides and I will just say this… I have never seen a pick more universally accepted in the wake of their nomination in either political camps then this pick… ever! And I say this with the added advantage of the internet, google and the speed of modern media. There will be always be someone to complain, if just for personal reasons aside from ideology, you may have found him, but to me this is a slam dunk and I think your wishes will be confirmed because as far as the GWOT is concerned a rift among his own supporters would be the most dangerous move on his part and he has averted that.

Jul 19, 2005 - 11:56 pm 27. Joseph (formerly Samuel):

I forgot to bring up the War issues, but Roger you have responded to this (on top of things tonight aren’t you!) On these issues Roberts may make hard civil libertarian’s nervous, but WOT neo-con’s will be happy.

Jul 20, 2005 - 12:02 am 28. mikem:

Get over it? There’s a war on? Get off your high horse, Roger. A man who makes a living selling fiction with a sideline in handing out his opinion should have felt a sharp pang of irony before telling others to shut up and get in line. Geez.

We shouldn’t be distracted by a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? I have no opinion yet on Roberts, but I have a sharp one on Roger today.

But I enjoy your website, so if you shut up about others shutting up from here on out, I’m liable to forgive you.

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:19 am 29. Patrick Tyson:

The nominee is a good, if very safe, choice.

The case…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052300599.html

Jul 20, 2005 - 1:39 am 30. vegetius:

Knocked the Rove thing right off the front pages.

Are you suprised??

Bush’s primary responsiblity is the defense of civilization but it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if his domestic opponents shifted their energies from sabotaging the war to fulminating about a SC choice.

My attitude about the court has shifted sharply to the right after the recent Kelo decision.

Jul 20, 2005 - 5:05 am 31. Matt in Tampa:

I’m familiar with Judge Roberts work and its a good choice. I’ll be surprised if the democrats can come up with any ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warranting a fillibuster on him.

That being said, at first I was a bit put off by Roger’s comments- the SCOTUS nominations were definately cited by most conservatives as the number 2 issue after the War of Terror. Thus, its logical to conclude that to many conservatives, judicial appointments are the most important domestic issue- and considering the last decade or two of court decisions, you can probably see why we’d care.

However, I’ll cut Roger slack on his comments because honestly, we’re both under the same tent and I don’t expect him (or others similarly politically minded, who have made the shift) to be as concerned as I am about a court nominee, especially when Roger is much more liberally socially then many of us are. This is one of the things conservatives have to face and deal with – as our tent grows larger, we are going to see more and more folks who may not agree with our social outlook BUT respect it- this is in sharp contrast to the looney left, who think any decision based on “values” is incredibly misguided and naive. Fortunately, as Roger’s admitted, I think he’s wrong about the conservatve reaction – my parents are huge conservatives and both of them were pleased with the pick- obviously, they’d much prefer a justice that would strike down Roe but a strict constructionist on the bench is the next best thing.

Anyway, its a good pick and I 100% believe we’ll see another democratic circus.

Oh it should be noted, I followed Reynolds link to KOS – one of the first comments was this :

“When Roberts thanked his family, he mentioned his son, Jack…Roberts’ wife’s face fell. It was like a poker tell. I think we should research Jack.”

Let the smearing begin. Such utter scumbags,

Jul 20, 2005 - 5:10 am 32. Keith_Indy:

If knee-jerk extremist liberal/leftists don’t like him, that’s usually enough of a recommendation.

But the fact that some knee-jerk extremist righties, are having the vapours over him, well that’s an even higher recommendation.

Seriously though, only the most bland person would cause no controversy, and who would want that.

Love Deans comment “This is just to divert attention from the Plame investigation.” Guess he doesn’t read the news anymore either. I thought the girls team visiting the White House in flip-flops was the mainstream medias attempt at diverting attention away from “Nadagate.”

Jul 20, 2005 - 6:48 am 33. richard mcenroe:

“Where do these people live?” Go next door and ask them; they’re you’re neighbors.

As for the Democrats, let’s face it: these are people who would block the doorway of a burning restaurant to throw a tantrum at the valet parkers…

Jul 20, 2005 - 6:52 am 34. Keith_Indy:

Oh, and anyone who missed FoxNews this morning, they showed why the adults may have been caught with suprising looks on their face.

Judge Roberts son was acting like the little boy he is. A very precocious, bored little boy. He was making faces, and wandering around.

And if you notice, while the kids were standing with the mom at the beginning of the press conference, they did not exit with the President and couple.

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:05 am 35. promoguy:

But, Keith_Indy, you know that the left discourages as much possible, little boys acting like little boys. This will definitely become a big issue. Wish they hadn’t shown a precocious little boy.

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:25 am 36. brian:

we can multi task. wasn’t the homestead act enacted during the civil war in 1862?

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:32 am 37. richard mcenroe:

He obviously didn’t give the village a chance to raise that child properly…

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:39 am 38. Ray Zacek:

I think the next major hurricane that forms in the Gulf of Mexico and threatens Florida should be named “Hurricane Divert Attention Away From Karl”

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:49 am 39. Kyda Sylvester:

I am also one of those who feels that GWB is perfectly capable of multi-tasking and that the judiciary, in particular SCOTUS, has a vital role in the WOT. Judicial appointments is one of the Big Three issues I take into the voting booth and, so far, George Bush has delivered on all three (I would vote for him again if given the chance).

And count me among those who thinks nominating Roberts was one shrewd political move. Judge Roberts is well regarded and well liked across the political spectrum. The Dems will make absolute fools of themselves (again) if they attempt a “Bork” in committee and, I believe, moderate Dems (especially those up for re-election) will not countenance a fillibuster. Schumer and Leahy had good reason to look grim at their presser. And, of course, the timing of the announcement is exquisite. Take that you Plame throwers.

Naturally some conservatives will be unhappy with the choice. I do believe that there are conservatives who do not oppose judicial activism as long as the courts activate their way, but I am not one of them. The first thing I would ask of any judge is to remember the judiciary’s place in the scheme of things and to act accordingly. By and large, however, conservatives are doing a happy dance.

…(or more precisely someone who is bored silly by people who identify with 18th Century ideologies and prefers to think for himself)…

I’m trying to decide if I should take umbrage at this remark. Does it suggest that those of us who do identify very much with certain “18th Century ideologies” are incapable of thinking for ourselves (not to mention boring)? Perhaps when we look at the Constitution we see a profoundly singular and exceptional document unique in the history of governance. Perhaps we think the 18th Century was one of those extraordinary moments in history when time, place, events and, most notably, men converged to change the direction of humankind. (Some of us might go so far as to say, with the exception of the birth, life, death and resurrection–if you’re so inclined–of Jesus Christ, the formation of the United States was perhaps the most significant event in human history.) Perhaps we believe that the greatest strength of Constitutional government is that it protects against the tyranny of “fashion”.

I applaud the nomination of John Roberts. Only time will tell if Roberts is the man we “contructionists”, we “originalists”, want him to be, but all indications are good. I certainly hope so because the relatively young Justice Roberts will be on the bench for a long, long time.

Jul 20, 2005 - 7:59 am 40. GaryS:

The comments about “war” didn’t quite cover the situation.

President Bush and most of the country are at war with out attackers.

A large number of Democrats are at war with the US.

Different war.

Jul 20, 2005 - 8:44 am 41. Kevin P:

Roger:

That big dummy Bush has trumped those brilliant Democrats again. How does this moron keep beating these incredibly wise people. The faces on the democratic Senators, Tribe, Nies, and all the rest told the story.

Leahy and Shumer were especially depressed. They know that Nies, Aron, and Move On crowd will push for the filibuster. They know if they pull that trigger the gang of 14 will split and the filibuster will be lost. So they either give in to Bush or they get ripped by their base for cowardice. If they try the filibuster it will be a noble Pickett’s Charge like attempt but it will have similar results.

There will be a lot of noise and stomping but Roberts will be the next member of the SCOTUS. Bet the house on it. Politics is the combination of principles and practicallity. President Bush is just better at it then the Democrats.

Kevin Peters

Jul 20, 2005 - 9:59 am 42. Silicon valley Jim:

Lieberman’s statement presumably means that he wouldn’t support a filibuster; that’s at least fifty-six votes, unless Arlen Specter or somebody like that goes wobbly (probably more likely that Specter would go wobbly as chairman of the judiciary committee), in which case I think that the Republican Senate leadership would be well-advised to strip him of his seniority (the Democrats did that with Strom Thurmond in the 1960s, which is why he changed his party afffiliation).

I’m sure that a Supreme Court wonk can find ways in which John Roberts fails to measure up to his standards of perfection; I’m equally sure that that’s true of every other justice or potential nominee. He looks pretty good to me. There’s always a concern about a David Souter (the movement seems nearly always to be to the left; the only exception that occurs to me is Byron White), but I think that there’s about as little as can be with Roberts.

He also seems to be quite personally charming, which should help.

Jul 20, 2005 - 10:34 am 43. Patrick Tyson:

Silicon Valley Jim—

(the Democrats did that with Strom Thurmond in the 1960s, which is why he changed his party afffiliation)

Not true.

The announcement came on September 16, 1964. You can find a summary of it in Strom Thurmond & the Politics of Southern Change by Nadine Cohodas. A couple of paragraphs further on:

Once the announcement had been made, [Harry] Dent could see that Thurmond was almost immediately more comfortable. Gone was the tension of being the odd man out. His new Republican colleagues made him feel welcome. Having no committee chairmanship to lose, he’d had less at stake in switching parties than several of his more senior southern colleagues. (Russell had conceded as much in a letter to one constituent who had written to ask why he didn’t switch parties, too.) Although no deal had been cut with Thurmond in advance, Republicans gave him the same rank on their side of the committees he worked on as he had had as a Democrat.

Not long after the announcement, Dent went down to South Carolina to run the “Thurmond Speaks for Goldwater” operation…

To my knowledge no senator has ever been denied a committee chairmanship/ranking member position to which he/she was entitled by seniority and the prevailing Senate/Caucus Rules.

Jul 20, 2005 - 6:12 pm 44. Stephen Kaus:

I agree that we are at war. If President Bush gives the matter his undivided attention for the next three years, he might actually figure out who we are at war with and why. Then again, probably not.

It is too bad that you conservatives did not think that it was important to allow President Clinton to give his undivided attention to anything except getting impeached. But then again, democrats don’t count as actual presidents in your book.

As to Roberts, God forbidf that we have a judge who sides with the little guy once in a while. As a liberal, I am heartened that he says he doesn’t have a “judicial philosophy” (read: bias) etched in stone like Scalia and Thomas.

Jul 20, 2005 - 6:18 pm 45. krakatoa:

heh

you said “perspicacious”

Jul 20, 2005 - 6:43 pm 46. Bostonian:

Stephen Kaus, so you think liberals look out for the little guy?

Not so. Liberals look out for “the common good,” which is something quite different and often goes against the little guy.

Go back and review the voting on Kelo, pal.

Jul 21, 2005 - 10:41 am 47. Stephen Kaus:

I agree on Kelo. Do you have a second case? I do like to go to the beach, even if some mogul would rather keep it to himself, for example. I also believe in things like fair trials, the right of free speech and freedom from religion, including both Christianity and Islam.

Jul 21, 2005 - 4:22 pm 48. Bostonian:

Stephen Kaus:

You agree on Kelo, but let’s look at Kelo.

Winners: Large pharmaceutical company and the town of New London.

Losers: Ordinary homeowners.

I don’t see how to argue this as looking out for the little guy.

***

The Left routinely tramples on the right to free speech (trampling little guys) and it gives suspected criminals more rights than their victims (trampling little guys). And the Constitution does not provide for freedom “from” religion. If it did, I would demand for freedom from the pseudo-religion of the Left, which impinges itself daily, everywhere (trampling little guys who don’t share Leftist beliefs).

But I’m sure you mean well.

Jul 22, 2005 - 8:32 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: