Judicial nominee

I’m only creating this topic so that I don’t have to go through news sites. So, what’s going on?

He’s picking one.

Edit: The fiendish Fox News is reporting that the pick is John Roberts.

Apparently it’s John Roberts, Jr. Someone tell me what to think of him, quick.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5

Summary: has significant ties to the Republican party; argued against Roe v Wade; has represented corporate interests against environmental regulations; is pro religious ceremonies in schools; has been nominated to and rejected from the DC circuit twice, once by Bush Sr and once by Bush Jr. [edit: correction – he currently sits on the DC circuit, having been confirmed in 2003.]

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

Thank you. I don’t like him.

Agreed, join the club.

This article in the Washington Post sees him in a more moderate light: “When Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, Clinton’s former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, called Roberts an “exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocate.””, “…a conservative, not an ideologue”, “…has often argued conservative positions before the court – but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.” and so on.

Sigh. Supposedly there was a large number of women on the list of prospectives. I was hoping he might have chosen one.

The skinny on him from NPR is that while he is super conservative he is considered about as smart as they come, is very likeable in person, and has a number of democratic supporters.

slate’s coverage of him is not nearly as complimentary.

However the NPR coverage was pretty compelling they really did make it seem like this will be a slam dunk nomination.

I like what I’ve read so far. :) Considering I was expecting Gonzalez until today, this is a pleasant surprise.

I hear he’s a strict constructionist. I know that’s not a sexy as say “pro-corporation” or “anti-abortion”, but it’s something that my civics teacher seemed to think was an important qualification.

Maybe there’s an as-yet-undiscovered gay secret or something.

What bothers me about this is that he is only 50 years old. That’s damn young for SCOTUS. Oh, and he worked for Fox. Oh, and he’s only been a judge for TWO YEARS. He has a ton of legal experience, but he landed his Circuit Court gig in 2003.

Which kind of strict constructionist? The one who strictly interprets the Constitution from the left or from the right?

Which kind of strict constructionist? The one who strictly interprets the Constitution from the left or from the right?[/quote]

I think the idea is if something is in fact deemed to be unconstitutional then polarity shouldn’t come into play. Thats why I think it’s considered a good qualification, and probably more relevant than whatever his political leanings may be.

What if he turns out to be another O’Connor, or maybe even a Sooner? (But not a Ginsburg, she’s just ugly) That’s the whole thing about the SCOTUS, only time will tell. We just don’t know.

The problem is, Uncle Larry, is that the constitution, like all contracts, is open to interpretation just by the very fact of reading it. Take the Establishment clause: some people read it as the government shouldn’t establish a state religion, some read it as the government shouldn’t have anything to do with religion and some read it as the government shouldn’t make any laws about religion at all. All are “reasonable” readings of the text.

That was my first thought … “Wow, he’s YOUNG”. Other than that, it’s not the worst choice. A definite surprise. I wonder if Gonzales was even in the running?

I’m going to wait a few days for the diggers to do their thing.

A few days? This is 2005! The faxes and RSS feed updates went out at 9:01 PM EST. :lol:

There won’t be anything that wasn’t already hashed through in the Circuit Court confirmation.

Isn’t NPR like, right-leaning?

Anyway, I’m disappointed by this choice. I was hoping for a woman. Or a spic. Or a woman spic. I guess I should know better. When W says he’ll nominate a moderate, it’s all in relative terms.

That’s what gets me. I don’t know enough about his position to have much of an opinion (altough I’m skeptical of any Bush appointee), but with only 2 years as a judge how is he even qualified?

Two years? Ee lad, luxury! Earlier, Bush indicated that he was even willing to consider non-judges for the Supreme Court.