Elphaba

I am opening this topic for a general discussion of likely Supreme court appointees and the potential for a Democratic filibuster. Rehnquist, O'Connor, or Stevens may announce retirement soon and speculation abounds.

Although the following article deals primarily with how Kennedy has disappointed conservatives, it offers an overall assessment of how judicial nominations have faired in the past. From what I have read here, I would be surprised that a compromise candidate will be submitted.

It is a long article and I hope that you will read all of it. I have highlighted the comments that I think are salient to the overall discussion, but of course you are free to select from the entirety.

In Battle to Pick Next Justice, Right Says, Avoid a Kennedy
By Jason DeParle
The New York Times

Sunday 26 June 2005

Washington - When Anthony M. Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, he took the place of a fallen conservative icon, Robert H. Bork, whose defeat in a Senate conflagration still shapes judicial politics. Sunny while Mr. Bork emanated gloom, clean-shaven while Mr. Bork was bearded, Justice Kennedy was above all philosophically undefined while Mr. Bork's conservatism was chiseled.

But for the next few years, Justice Kennedy sided so reliably with the court's right flank that relieved conservatives proclaimed him an ally: "Bork without the beard."

No one calls him that now. Instead, some notable conservatives are calling for his impeachment. For more than a decade, Justice Kennedy has infuriated the right, writing decisions in cases that struck down prayer at public school graduations, upheld abortion rights, gave constitutional protections to pornography and gay sex and banned the death penalty for juveniles.

With talk of a possible court resignation to follow the term that ends Monday, Justice Kennedy is looming in many conservatives' minds as just the kind of painful mistake they hope President Bush avoids. Showing few sharp edges in life or in law, the justice emerged as a consensus third choice, after President Ronald Reagan's first two selections failed. Demanding more ideological clarity in what could be the first Republican selection in 14 years, the right is now mobilized with a cry: "No more Tony Kennedys."

A genial apostle of tolerance and consensus, Justice Kennedy, 68, is an unlikely lightning rod, one whose traditional Catholic background has little in common with the flag-burners, pornographers or abortion advocates his reading of the Constitution protects. In an interview last week, he responded to a question about what it was like to be cast as a Judas justice.

"Oh, I suppose everyone would like it if everyone applauded when he walked down the street," he said. "There is a loneliness. You can have all the clerks and all the colleagues you want, but in the end the decision is yours to make. And it's surprising how often the judge must go back and ask, 'Why am I doing this?' "

While his critics protest specific outcomes in cases from the culture wars, they also express outrage at his expansive style, which they call pure judicial activism.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Bork, a prolific lecturer and author who functions as a kind of shadow justice, said Justice Kennedy's opin-ions typified a court "no longer sticking to the Constitution" but "enacting a political agenda." Then he returned to the sore and now timely subject of his own defeat.

"It's hard to pick the right people in the sense of those who won't change, because there aren't that many of them," Mr. Bork said. "And if you do identify somebody who believes in the original principles of the Constitution, then the other side can see it too and will put up a bitter fight. So you tend to get people who are wishy-washy, or who are unknown, and those people tend to drift to the left in response to elite opinion."

Looking ahead to the fight that may unfold if the ailing chief justice, William H. Rehnquist, or another justice resigns, Mr. Bork offered a fix: "I think the solution is one hell of a battle for judges who stick to the actual Constitution."

A Dress Rehearsal

Much of the right seems ready now for just that kind of fight. This year's showdown over Mr. Bush's nominees to federal appeals courts played out as an elaborate dress rehearsal for a Supreme Court battle. It ended with a seeming stalemate between Republicans who want to end the possibility of judicial filibusters and Democrats who want to preserve them.

Organizational battalions are now in place, with conservatives saying they are playing defense against what they call a powerful attack machine on the left that took down Mr. Bork, and nearly Justice Clarence Thomas. Encouraged by White House advisers, C. Boyden Gray, a former aide to the first President Bush, has set up the Committee for Justice to coordinate strategy and run advertising campaigns. Leaders of the Federalist Society, the premier network of conservative lawyers, have started another group, the Judicial Confirmation Network, to rally support.

Progress for America, another conservative advocacy group with close ties to the White House, said it planned to spend "an initial $18 million" on ads for a Bush Supreme Court nominee. The campaign started last week, spending $700,000 to discredit liberal attacks before they can begin.

Conservative Christian groups are taking the lead. Focus on the Family, a leading evangelical group, and its Washington spin-off, the Family Research Council, have rallied churchgoers around judicial fights, seeing them as a chance to reverse decades of losses in the culture wars.

"The confrontation is coming with a vengeance," wrote Dr. James C. Dobson, in a Focus on the Family Action letter to about two million supporters. As he often does, Dr. Dobson labeled Justice Kennedy "the most dangerous man in America."

For much of the right, his story is a dismayingly familiar one. Ever since the elevation of Earl Warren, Republican presidents have picked justices who disappoint the Republican faithful: William J. Brennan Jr. (President Dwight D. Eisenhower), Harry A. Blackmun (President Richard M. Nixon), John Paul Stevens (President Gerald R. Ford), Sandra Day O'Connor (President Reagan) and David H. Souter (the first President Bush).

One result is rage at what Mr. Bork sees as subverted democracy. Even though Republicans keep winning elections, he said, the court "can say that the majority may not rule" in areas where permissiveness reigns, including abortion, gay rights and pornography. Calling most justices "judicial oligarchs," Mr. Bork said they reflected "the intelligentsia's attitude, which is to the cultural left of the American people."

Some conservatives blame the judicial selection pool, which is largely confined to graduates of elite law schools that they describe as liberal (Justice Kennedy studied law at Harvard). Some say the Senate confirmation process weeds out strong conservatives. Many critics argue that justices drift left after reaching the court, in the hopes of pleasing "liberal elites."

Virtually all the court's conservative critics say that Republicans have not fought hard enough on behalf of philosophical purists.

"I think the conservatives have decided they've been outmaneuvered in the past," Mr. Bork said. "They're ready to fight back."

Among the combatants is Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and a prominent social conservative. "The basic line I've heard again and again is 'No more unknown packages,' " Mr. Farris said. "We want to know what we're getting. Kennedy was an unknown package."

Virtually unknown to the public, Justice Kennedy was scarcely bred for the crossfire. By outward appearances, he has lived a life of utter conformity, attending his parents' alma mater, Stanford; taking over his father's law practice; and raising his three children in the house where he was raised. As a childhood friend tells the story, Justice Kennedy's father was so nonplused by his son's altar-boy piety, he offered him $100 to get in trouble; the young man refused. (If such an exchange occurred, Justice Kennedy said he no longer remembers it.)

Among those who find Justice Kennedy hard to define is Justice Kennedy. Asked last week about the source of his political values, he said, "my religion, I guess," a brand of traditional Catholicism. Yet he also talked of imbibing the openness and optimism of a boyhood spent in postwar Sacramento. Asked how he had become a conservative, he said: "That's not a term I usually use for myself. People say I'm a libertarian. I don't really know what that means."

In a wending conversation last week, he touched on topics as diverse the Enlightenment (he likes it) and the television free-for-all "Hardball" (he doesn't). The partisanship of Washington seems alien to him. "Earl Warren ran on both the Democratic and Republican tickets," he said, speaking of the California governor and family friend who joined the Supreme Court in 1953 as a famously activist chief justice. Moving to Virginia after joining the court, Justice Kennedy was startled that someone thought it necessary to warn him that a neighbor was a Democrat. "I found that a little offensive," he said.

His rejection of the term aside, "libertarian" at least partly describes him. Among the childhood memories he conjured last week was his reading the scene in George Orwell's novel "1984" in which the protagonist is tortured into saying two plus two is five. Then, "they say, 'we're going to continue the torture until you believe it,' " he said, recalling his adolescent horror at the prospect of mind control.

Liberty, especially liberty of speech, remains a defining concern, and he is a zealous enforcer of First Amendment rights. A 1980 case drew his special ire as an appeals court judge. The police paid a 5-year-old to inform on his mother - an infringement of the parent-child bond he called an especially "pernicious" encroachment upon "personal liberty."

His admirers see in him the essence of a judicial temperament: good judgment, fair-mindedness and a willingness to disentangle his own moral values from the law. "There's a moral component to tolerance," he said last week. "It means, 'I respect your views, I respect your standing as a citizen.' "

But his ever-polite manner is not at issue; what detractors question are his judicial views. In writing a decision this year that banned the death penalty for juveniles, Justice Kennedy bolstered his argument by citing similar bans in such questionable arenas of human rights as Nigeria and Iran.

Writing in National Review, Mr. Bork called the decision a "dazzling display of lawlessness" that comes "close to accepting foreign control of the American Constitution." Two marquee names of Christian conservativism, Mr. Farris and Phyllis Schlafly, demanded his impeachment. The House majority leader, Tom DeLay, warned that Congress could remove judges who failed to show "good behavior."

One critic at a forum on the "Judicial War on Faith" accused Justice Kennedy of upholding "Marxist-Leninist, satanic principles."

It Started with School Prayer

The case that might be titled Conservatism v. Kennedy began a few years after he joined the court. In 1992, he drafted what was to be a majority opinion that affirmed the right to school prayer. Then he switched sides and struck it down. "My draft looked quite wrong," he wrote to Justice Blackmun.

His decision in the case, Lee v. Weisman, cited "research in psychology" to argue that students might feel coerced by prayers at public school graduations. Writing in dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's conservative anchor, scoffed that "interior decorating is rock-hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs."

Five days later came a decision in an epochal abortion case. For years, the court appeared to be headed toward an overturn of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that found a right to abortion in the 14th Amendment's due process clause. Had 58 senators not voted against him, Mr. Bork would have cast the decisive anti-Roe vote.

Justice Kennedy's constitutional views on the matter were largely unknown, since his 12 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had brought no major abortion cases. His record there was solidly conservative, but there were glints of ideological departure. While upholding the Navy's right to expel a gay sailor, he warned in a 1980 footnote that some restrictions on homosexuality "may face substantial constitutional challenge."

Hoping to forestall his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, opponents flagged the case for Senate conservatives. "No way, Jose," responded Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, at the prospect of Mr. Kennedy's selection. But Mr. Reagan chose him anyway, in part for his straight-arrow reputation. Mr. Bork had failed, and a second choice, Douglas H. Ginsburg, had withdrawn after admitting marijuana use.

Justice Kennedy then met with Senator Helms and assuaged him by saying that he admired his anti-abortion views. A published account of the meeting appeared, and Democrats quizzed Justice Kennedy about it at his confirmation hearing.

"I admire anyone with strong moral beliefs," he said. "Now, it would be highly improper for a judge to allow his or her own religious views to enter into a decision respecting a constitutional matter."

The deft display of diplomacy brought unanimous confirmation.

In his surprise ruling four years later, Justice Kennedy not only reaffirmed the fundamental right to an abortion, but he joined an opinion that chided Roe opponents, including those in two Republican administrations, for repeated assaults on a settled issue around which a generation of citizens had made life plans.

"Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt," he wrote in the case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, casting his views in part as a defense of precedent.

The infuriating news for conservatives was delivered with a puzzling overture, as Justice Kennedy invited a reporter into his chambers just before taking the bench. "Sometimes you don't know if you're Caesar about to cross the Rubicon or Captain Queeg cutting your own tow line," he said. Then he excused himself to "brood."

Explanations for his defection flourished. He had been manipulated by law clerks. He had been seduced by elites. He had misled the right all along. Mr. Bork said: "He had indicated that he would overturn Roe v. Wade, and then changed his vote. He was expected to be different."

Justice Kennedy later offered his own view in a lecture to a law school class. As reported by Jeffrey Rosen in The New Yorker, his "eyes filled with tears" as he explained his moral opposition to abortion, but he said he could not impose personal views.

Among the many things in Casey that provoked conservatives is one often-ridiculed line. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," Justice Kennedy wrote.

"What the hell does that mean?" Mr. Bork said last week, mocking its vagueness and its distance from constitutional text. "Obviously it doesn't mean the individual is unbounded by any law. So it must mean that the individual is unbounded by laws the justices don't like. It's simply an assertion of power, in a way that's particularly empty of intellectual content. It sums up what's wrong with the court."

More conservative setbacks followed Casey. In a 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote the decision that found constitutional protection for homosexual sodomy. And he did so with unexpected sweep, calling the Constitution sufficiently expansive that "persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives," he wrote. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny" by outlawing sex. As Justice Kennedy read from the decision, which overturned a recent precedent, some gay and lesbian lawyers in the courtroom silently cried.

Scathing in dissent, Justice Scalia warned that the ruling undermined all kinds of morals-based legislation - including laws against adult incest, bigamy, and bestiality - and laid the groundwork for gay marriage, a notion that Justice Kennedy's opinion explicitly rejected. But a few months later, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed a right to gay marriage under the State Constitution, it cited the support of the Lawrence ruling.

"Anybody who doesn't understand that Lawrence legalized gay marriage doesn't understand how to read Supreme Court cases," Mr. Farris said.

The Good Old No. 3 Club

For all the furor on the culture-war fronts, Justice Kennedy's record remains largely conservative. He sided with the 5-4 majority in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 case that stopped a Florida vote recount and ensured a Bush victory. And his views on affirmative action are especially immune to change. As he sees the matter, the Constitution forbids it.

In his agonizing over many social issues and his ability to empathize with those outside his own moral code, Justice Kennedy's admirers see courage. "Kennedy has the ability to generalize from his own freedom to the freedom of other people," said Robert Gordon, a professor at Yale Law School.

Others praise his openness. "One of the things critics ridicule in him is that he changes his mind a lot," said Michael Dorf, a former Kennedy clerk. "In my mind that's a good thing. You want judges to be impartial and not out of hand reject the arguments on either side."

Mr. Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, has a more ambivalent view. He talked with Justice Kennedy at length in 1997 for The New Yorker, which cast him mostly in favorable terms. But Mr. Rosen said more recent cases had left him uneasy with what he called their unnecessary reach.

"Speaking as a liberal advocate of judicial restraint," he said, "I sympathize with the criticism of Justice Kennedy in some of these areas involving abortion, gay rights and the application of international law to the culture wars." While still seeing a "great good faith" at work, he warned that Justice Kennedy had "embraced a rhetoric of judicial supremacy."

"His opinions are filled with the rhetoric of the unsought burden of judicial review," Mr. Rosen said. "Then pushes it for all it's worth."

Justice Kennedy last week rejected the talk of usurped authority. "In the long term, the court is not antimajoritarian - it's majoritarian," he said. Over time, "people recognize the good faith and the legitimacy and openness and honesty of the process," he argued. "The judicial function does not lend itself to day-to-day critique."

Meanwhile, attacks come with the job. As the most difficult questions arise, including those of life and death, "we don't have the option not to decide," he said. "I mean, we're the ones who help the executioner pull the switch," he added. "It's not at all surprising that people disagree."

In 1987, with his nomination still pending, Justice Kennedy received a note from Justice Blackmun, who as the author of Roe was a magnet of scorn and himself a third pick. Welcome to "the good old No. 3 club," Justice Blackmun wrote.

"Mr. Justice Story was also in the No. 3 club," Justice Kennedy replied. He was referring to James Madison's 1812 nominee, Joseph Story, who went on to side with the Federalists, his patron's enemies.

Ustwo

I just hope its a justice that understands the concept of private property.

Aka a conservative, federalist type of judge as they seem to be the only ones who do.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Elphaba

The 5/4 decision by the Supremes on eminent domain would seem to knock that reasoning as an overly optimistic selection criteria.

I found the discussion regarding how conservative appointees move toward progressive positions interesting but not convincing. Why would a conservative justice feel the need to please the "elitists?" They hold their position for life and for that reason I don't see the need to please anyone. I believe a strict constitutionalist can have a progressive opinion about personal privacy. Does anyone have a better explanation for that drift from right to left?

Elphaba

Some potential nominee's have been posited under various senerios and this is what I have read most recently.

If Renquist retires (very likely unless his oncologist has good news) Antonin Scalia is a likely choice for chief justice. He has been a reliable conservative presence among the Supremes, but that doesn't prevent Bush from choosing someone outside of the current court to replace Renquist.

There is a general agreement among interest groups that Bush has been considering the following as potential justice nominees:

- John G. Roberts, a US Circuit Court of Appeals judge for the DC Circuit
- J. Michael Luttig, of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA
- Emilio Garza, of the 5th Circuit in New Orleans
- Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

I am unfamiliar with the first three, but Gonzales would certainly get my hackles up. His respect for the law seems to be predicated on how to get around it. I would consider him an extremely poor choice for Bush to nominate.

Mephisto2

Thanks for this post. It's been most enlightening.

One thing that often surprises me is just how politicized the judiciary are in the US. Many countries, indeed most countries with a written constitution, have a court of final appeal and/or intepretation. But it seems to me that in America, their appointment, their track record, their political position seems to be much more debated and influential than their simple duties or responsibility in interpreting law.

I find this fascinating. Only in America would a large number of people actually know the names (and political leanings) of their Supreme Court judges. This shows both a laudable interest in the judicial process, but also (in my opinion) some unsettling aspects of confusion between the executive and judicial branches.

Anyway, thanks again for the article.

Let's hope that a good judge is nominated, and not a liberal or conservative. It would be nice for them to be considered only on their basis as the former, and neither of the latter.

Mr Mephisto

SirSeymour

I consider myself a very conservative person. I have strong Republican tendencies, leaning even over into Libertarian. By and large, I do NOT have an issue with the Supreme Court or Justice Kennedy in particular and I am tired of the hard right wing bitching about it. The Supreme Court is there to protect the Constitution and as something of a last line of defense against the "tyranny of the majority".

The right is mad about issues that they view as moral black and whites. Flag burning, abortion, gay rights and pornography, to name several. While I don't agree with flag burning and frankly consider the act to stupid and meaningless, it is a "from" of free speech and should be protected by the first amendment. Abortion is a tough one and I see both sides of the issue. I don't know if the court has done right by this one or not and frankly I don't believe anyone can know this for certain either. I consider gay rights to be kin to women's rights or minority rights and while I don't agree with the lifestyle I also don't agree the majority has the right to condemn it. We had hundreds of years of slavery with this same attitude which we now profess to know is wrong and yet we still cling to it with gays. Porn is clearly a free speech issue. I have no problem with regulating it but an outright ban smacks of serious censorship which is something country has stood against since its founding.

In short, while a conservative, I agree with the immortal words of Voltaire when he said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Is it not possible that when faced with the massive responsibility of ruling on things from the highest bench in the land some conservative judges are realizing the difference between an action and the right to that action? I do not agree with a lot of actions that I see every day and yet I acknowledge the right of those acting to act in that matter as they see fit so long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of others.

Where is the problem understanding this?

__________________
SQL query
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
Zero rows returned....

StanT

An interesting take on the possible nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

Crisis Of The Half-Justice

I tend to agree, it would seem that appointing Mr Gonzales to the Supreme Court would work against the Bush agenda. Having to recuse himself in these cases would work against the president's interests.

Elphaba

Thanks for the analysis on Gonzales, Stan. Logically, it would appear that he should be out of the running. With the confidence Bush has in him, I suspect he will at least be a major player in selecting potential nominees.

One thing that drew my attention in the first article is that conservatives have put together a PR campaign to discredit liberals and promote whomever Bush puts forward. I believe this is unprecedented and I'm not clear what purpose it would serve. Confirmation of a superior court nominee is not a popularity contest and senate conservatives are already motivated to affirm a conservative justice. The only purpose I can see is to keep political rancor high coming into the midterm elections. What am I missing here?

moosenose

I would give my right nut for Kozinski to get the nod. Not Ted, the other one, from the 9th Circuit. I'd also like to see Posner get the nod, but he's said he doesn't want it. I've heard Wilkinson's name being bandied about for a bit. That would be amusing, since I used to know him slightly ages ago. He seemed at the time to be a decent chap, but he has to be ancient by now. If Bush REALLY wanted to give the Democrats the "Red-ass", he'd nominate Volokh, who is currently a law professor at UCLA, but is an "up and comer". He's also younger than some of the leftovers still in my fridge, but that's a POSITIVE thing.

Elphaba

Moosenose, I'm trying to find more information on the potential nominees. I'm a google dud... any idea on how to find their judicial record?

moosenose

Sorry, but not really. You can try Findlaw. I've been exposed to their works because I've been in the field for decades. If you want a good giggle, look up Kozinski's dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer. Here's most of it on-line: http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-9.html

Volokh has a blog, just google "Volokh conspiracy"

Posner is a big Law and Economics guy, and has written a bunch of decisions.

Wilkinson is out of the 4th Circuit, IIRC

Elphaba

Thanks, Moosenose. I'll start from your suggestions.

I also remember from the Thomas confirmation hearings that the ABA rates supreme court nominees in terms of their past judicial decisions. I'll try looking there, as well.

RusCrimson

Posner has a blog too: http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/

I don't think he'll be in the running though, as he's written some controversial stuff in the past. I learned how to write (I'd like to think well) by reading his opinions.

Elphaba

The following article proposes an interesting theory that the GOP would prefer leaving Roe v. Wade intact and some good supporting arguments are made. This is at least as tricky as nominating Gonzales. (I am having way too much fun in all of the speculation. )

If Ax Falls on Roe, It May Also Split GOP
By Peter Wallsten
The Los Angeles Times

Monday 04 July 2005

Washington - Social conservatives relish the idea that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation from the Supreme Court has moved them one step closer to their goal of outlawing abortion. Liberals are vowing to fight any potential successor who would, unlike O'Connor, favor overturning Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that affirmed a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

But the political irony that few on either side readily acknowledge - but many are pondering - is that Roe's demise could transform American elections by crippling the conservative political majority that opposes abortion and by giving new life to hobbled liberals who support the ruling's preservation.

That the 32-year-old landmark decision could be overturned seems a distant possibility. Justices who believe the ruling should stand hold five seats on the nine-member court, even with O'Connor gone.

But the prospect of progress toward overturning Roe - and the realization that President Bush could have at least two chances to make transformative appointments to the court - has exposed a disagreement between conservatives who want abortion criminalized and pragmatic Republicans concerned that shifting the issue from the courts to the ballot box would lead to massive GOP losses.

Of particular concern is the party's fate in closely contested battlegrounds such as Ohio, Florida and Michigan, where the resurgence of the abortion issue could alienate moderate voters who have helped Republicans make gains on all levels.

"Smart strategists inside the party don't want the status quo changed," said Tony Fabrizio, chief pollster for the 1996 Republican presidential campaign of Bob Dole.

"This may cause Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger - who are strongly committed to being pro-choice - to flip or to push for a third-party movement," he added. "If they did outlaw it, it would ultimately turn the Republican Party into a theocratic-based party rather than an ideological party, and the party would necessarily start shedding people."

Strategists worry that overturning Roe would make abortion a top-tier political issue again, galvanizing liberals and moderates who have long assumed the issue was settled. At the same time, it would eliminate a major organizing principle of the evangelical movement that gained prominence in last year's elections. And Republican candidates, who have long sidestepped the issue by assuring moderate voters that judges had the final say on abortion, would suddenly be forced to say how they would vote on a woman's right to choose.

"A candidate could no longer say, 'I'm running for state representative, not the Supreme Court,' " said David Johnson, former director of the Republican Party of Florida, who has advised GOP campaigns, including that of John Thune, who last year defeated the Senate's top Democrat, Tom Daschle, in South Dakota. "That response would no longer be valid because their vote would matter."

Few experts believe O'Connor's resignation would swing the court on abortion, since five justices - Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer - have indicated that they would not vote to overturn Roe. But social conservatives say O'Connor's departure offers the first chance in decades to reshape the court's ideological makeup. Kennedy is considered a swing vote, and Stevens' age - he is 85 - gives conservatives hope that the end of Roe is close at hand.

For that to happen, however, Bush would have to comply with conservative demands to appoint strict constructionists with the judicial philosophies of Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, both opponents of Roe.

As a candidate, Bush sent plenty of signals that he agreed with that approach, even calling the two men examples of his ideal nominee. During his reelection campaign last fall, the president referred repeatedly to a "culture of life," and he thrilled religious conservatives during a campaign debate when he described the 1857 Dred Scott decision affirming slavery as an example of a bad court opinion. Abortion foes view Roe as the Dred Scott decision of its time, and said after the debate that they saw the reference as a deliberate signal.

But Bush - aware of the need to attract votes from women and moderates - has stopped short of endorsing Roe's reversal. Two prominent abortion rights supporters, Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, were given prime speaking roles at last summer's Republican National Convention.

Bush told Danish television last week that although he believed abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest or when a mother's life was at risk, he understood that the nation was not ready for Roe to go away. "I'm a realist as well," Bush said. "I mean, this is an issue that has polarized the American political society. And in order to get good policy in place that protects the life of a child, we're going to have to change hearts."

Polls confirm Bush's assessment. A May survey of registered voters by Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn., found that 55% believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases - including 6 in 10 independents and more than a third of Republicans.

Another May survey, conducted for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, found that 55% of adults believed the matter should be left up to a woman and her doctor. The margins of error for each poll were 3 and 3.1 percentage points, respectively.

But social conservatives mobilized by the prospect of Bush transforming the court with at least two new justices turned out in big numbers to help reelect the president. The turnout underscored the political value to the GOP of Roe as a motivating force for evangelical voters. The question facing Bush, analysts said, is how long the religious base would tolerate the GOP if the chance to overturn Roe is lost.

"Bush is in a real dilemma," said John Seery, a professor of politics at Pomona College, who has written about the politics of abortion. "The true-believer, pro-life person wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and the politics are secondary. But to political strategists who are concerned about the future of the Republican Party, this would be almost devastating."

Still, while strategists gauge the fallout, activists pushing the debate on each side show no signs of altering their positions or tactics for the sake of the electoral college map.

Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, which has led the opposition to some of Bush's judicial nominees, said it was "pure poppycock" to assume that a more conservative court could hurt Republicans.

The president, Neas said, will name justices who would carry out the conservative movement's long-held goal of rolling back New Deal philosophies such as Social Security that the modern-day Supreme Court has upheld. He said a court that followed the views of Thomas and Scalia, rather than O'Connor's, would be expected to overturn about 100 rulings affecting not only abortion but civil rights, the environment and privacy.

"The architects of this strategy to redefine government and the courts, I think, are willing to suffer some short-term political costs as long as, in the long term, they control the law of the land for the next several decades," Neas said.

Evangelical leaders, who were quick last week to remind Bush of his campaign promises to transform the court, are looking ahead to the day Roe is overturned.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading evangelical advocacy group, told reporters last month that the change would come - albeit slowly.

"It's going to be a process," Perkins said. "It's not going to happen overnight. It could take eight years. It could take a while."

He predicted states would begin to enact more restrictions on abortion, and that ultimately a conservative Supreme Court would reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Kenneth L. Connor, a former head of the Family Research Council who helped engineer congressional efforts this year to intervene in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case, said overturning Roe would create political shockwaves that might force both sides to reach a consensus.

But Connor, a former candidate for governor in Florida, said many Republican politicians had no desire to see Roe go away.

"The current situation allows them to furrow their brow, ring their hands, gnash their teeth but not do a dadgum thing about it," he said. "If the court were to put the decision in their hands, they would be mortified."

Ann Stone, chairman of Republicans for Choice, said the best evidence of all that the GOP establishment benefited from maintaining Roe was the lack of any push by the party's majority leadership in Congress for a constitutional ban on abortion.

"If they thought it was a winning issue, they would have had a vote," she said. "This could wind up being a case of getting what you wish for and then regretting it."

alansmithee

Interesting article, but I'd like to give what I'd consider my concurring view of it. I don't see the problem being so much splitting the Republican party, but one of losing a key rallying point. As long as Roe v. Wade is on the books, it's a quick hook to get many conservatives to rally, and were it to go away there would have to be another rallying point, which I'm not sure there is. On the flipside, it might also serve as something for liberals to rally around, and could lead more to actually turn out at the polls.

And something else that was only briefly touched upon in the article-why is it controversial for a Justice, whose job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, to be a strict constitutionalist? If other justices aren't following the constitution, what are they basing their decisions off of? This feeling is where I think that the right's opposition to so-called activist judges comes from. I think that it would be perfectly reasonable for a judge to rule one way based on the law, but in the opinion state that they feel that that portion needs to be changed for the good of the country, instead of giving specious legal arguments for legislating from the bench.

Elphaba

I can't agree with you more. I wonder as well about the accusation of "activist justices". When seven of the nine current supreme court justices have been appointed by Republican presidents, it stretches the imagination that all somehow became activists, ignoring the constitution.

RusCrimson

Republicans have a tendency of picking SCOTUS justices that disagree with them. For example, President Eisenhower described Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan as the two biggest mistakes he'd made in the White House.

Where is Hugo Black when you need him?

Elphaba

Eisenhower's comment would be after the fact, of course. I agree with you that Republican choices have not performed as expected. I read today that Clinton consulted Owen Hatch for nominees that would be acceptable. Hatch was the one to recommend what are now considered the only two "liberal" justices.

j8ear

And this piece here is no different:

While I am quick to rail against liberal justices, judicial activism, and legislating from the bench, as has been discussed repeatedly on these boards, I recognize a conflict between modesty, activism, reality, interpretation of precedent and originalist intent.

I am unfamiliar with Judge Wilkinson, but I will dig a little deeper to learn more about him.

Any thoughts?

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Elphaba

Like you, I have great respect for George Will. His opinions are formed from a great intellect and are carefully reasoned.

My reading of this suggests that Will sees a strict reading of the constitution an unachievable ideal in that history will always inform the "modest" judge.

Bear, do you know of a source for looking up the written opinions of judges? I would like to know more about Wilkerson, too.

Thanks for the great read.

j8ear

I know that all recent SCOTUS opinions are available at:

http://supremecourtus.gov/

I suspect circuit and other lower court opinions are published in a similar fashion.

This seems like a pretty comprehensive library:

http://www.law.emory.edu/caselaw/

-b

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Elphaba

Many thanks...off to check the links out.

Here is the link for the 4th Circuit

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/

Elphaba

A google search brought up quite a few things. Here's the basics of his career:

Wilkinson, James Harvie III
Born 1944 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on January 30, 1984, to a seat vacated by John Decker Butzner, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on August 9, 1984, and received commission on August 13, 1984. Served as chief judge, 1996-2003.

Education:
Yale University, B.A., 1967

University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 1972

Professional Career:
U.S. Army, 1968-1969
Republican candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia, 1970
Law clerk, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Supreme Court of the United States, 1972-1973
Associate professor, University of Virginia School of Law, 1973-1978
Editorial page editor, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, 1978-1981
Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1982-1983
Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, 1983

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male

Elphaba

From Wikipeadia, the most frequently mentioned potential nominees:

Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (b. 1950)

Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
J. Michael Luttig (b. 1954)
James Harvie Wilkinson III (b. 1944)

Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
Edith Brown Clement (b. 1948)
Emilio M. Garza (b. 1947)
Edith Jones (b. 1949)
Priscilla Owen (b. 1954)

Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
Danny Julian Boggs (b. 1944) - Chief Judge

Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Frank H. Easterbrook (b. 1948)
Richard Posner (b. 1939)
Diane S. Sykes (b. 1957)

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Alex Kozinski (b. 1950)

Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit
Michael W. McConnell (b. 1955)

Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
William H. Pryor, Jr. (b. 1962)

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Janice Rogers Brown (b. 1949)
John G. Roberts Jr. (b. 1955)

United States Senators
John Cornyn (b. 1952) - Republican senator from Texas
Orrin Hatch (b. 1934) - Republican senator from Utah
Jon Kyl (b. 1942) - Republican senator from Arizona

Executive branch officials
Alberto R. Gonzales (b. 1955) - Attorney General
Theodore B. Olson (b. 1940) - Former Solicitor General

Other backgrounds
Miguel Estrada (b. 1961) - Withdrawn nominee for the D.C. Circuit
Larry Thompson (b. 1946) - General Counsel for PepsiCo

dy156

I'd pick Easterbrook. Why? He's a legal genious; libertarian tendencies that are described as "pro-business" by the left but without the strong stances on cultural conservative issues, so the hard right is not so fond of him either. The main reason though is that his area of expertise encompasses both criminal and civil cases, and he has extensive experience on the bench. All to often someone is made a judge after a disinguished career in criminal law, but no civil experience, or vice versa. I've read a bit about him, and like what I've read.

Here's a recent and succint description of him from Slate I found by googling:

in the same article, I came across another name that certainly sounds like a good candidate.

They really need someone with experience, and frankly, I sure hope that it is not Cornyn or Gonzales. Sure having been on the Texas Supreme Court sounds great in a brief bio, but those are elected positions, and neither was there for any length of time. It's the same august body where Xavier Rodriguez, an accomplished legal scholar, was voted out of the Republican primary by a virtual nobody with a white-sounding name.

links to Slate articles re: potential candidates:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2122079/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121859/

Elphaba

The dems have put forward two potential nominees for Bush's consideration.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top Democrats recommended to President Bush on Tuesday two Hispanics among potential Supreme Court nominees they viewed as able to win Senate confirmation without a bruising partisan battle.

The possible candidates included Judges Edward Prado of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to sources familiar with the talks by Bush and key Senate Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Elphaba

Rehnquist has announced that he has no immediate plans to retire.

NCB

I think someone needs to inform Harry Reid and other Dems that it's the PRESIDENT that gets to nominate the judges.


And yes, I'm back. At least for the short term. And dont ask.

__________________

MoonDog

If Rehnquist WERE to drop, Bush could chose a conservative, then tap Hillary Clinton to serve.
Balanbce achieved, plus it gets Senator Clinton out of my state - hehe!
:-P

Zodiak

The Constitution says that the President appoints judges under the advise and consent of the Senate. Checks and balances and all....this is not a dictatorship, although some in this country would argue otherwise and by doing so put their party before country.

Ginsberg went in because a Republican suggested her. Clinton took the advice and nominated her, and the Senate gave her 93 votes. THAT is how this should be done, but I have a feeling that this nomination will be another selfish power grab.

oh...and Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. It is too valuable of a tool to get fundamentalist Christians to the polls. Remember that to these Mayberry Machiavellis, issues mean nothing in the face of gaining and preserving power.

__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha

alansmithee

So shouldn't we be asking Bill Frist then for his nominee choices? Or does advise and consent only apply to Dems?

I agree here 100%. The Dems will do their best to obstruct whoever is nominated as a way to somehow salvage what little power their party has left.

I could see this happening easily. Not only would it cut into the ideological base of the republicans, but would give a rally point for dems. But as we have seen in the past, once someone's on the bench it's hard to say for sure what they will do.

Ustwo

Ironicly they actualy SAID this in 'memogate' for Bush's other court appointments.

Liberals only win these days in activist courts, which is IMHO just another form of despotism, and an obvious abuse of the intended power.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Zodiak

That is fine, of course Frist should be consulted. However, I would argue that Frist will go along with whomever Bush chooses. There has been little independent thinking from Congress over the last five years other than to serve as a rubber stamp for whatever the executive branch wants.

But I am not for either party being favored in government. Both should be consulted and a consensus reached. Extremists only play into divisiveness, which I am sorry to say seems to be the order of the day.

I disagree. Perhaps if the nominee was more mainstream then one would see the Democratic party split their vote as they have with so many issues recently. Remember, the Democratic party has DLC members and blue dogs who will vote against the party line to preserve their seat in southern or conservative states. The only way the Democrats would go into "obstruction mode" is if the nominee is ideologically extreme when compared to the relatively conservative Sanda Day O'Conner.

Yes, once a person is separated from politics, it is amazing to see what their conscious would truly say when given scruples. I suppose that is the reason why SCOTUS appointments are life-long. At some point politics does need to be separated from governmental decisions.

But the question I have for the right is....if Roe v. Wade is not overturned, then what consequences will their be? Will the right continue to support Republicans after it becomes clear that Roe v. Wade is used by Republicans as a lynchpin issue to get votes?

A hard question that has parallels with the Democrats. On the left, Democrats are always having to deal with their own party working against their interests. This practice (by blue dogs and DLCers) has caused schisms to the level where the party's core principles are off of the radar screen with the American people.

__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha

alansmithee

That's why social security reform has got so far, right?

Where do the people come into this? Should consensus be reached if the majority of people believe something?



The problem here is who decides what is extreme. Your view seems to give the dems the power of determining if someghing is extreme or not, when i'm not sure if they can objectively do that.

Conscience should have nothing to do with legal decisions. The only thing consulted should be law. And at least in regard to roe v. wade, conscience would lead people to overturn it in many cases, which is why it is law that needs to be followed.

It should be obvious that the "right" will support republicans regardless of what happens with Roe v Wade. Just like the "left" supports dems regardless of what happened with gay marriage. Both parties just use issues as a way to get votes. Some of the individual representatives do believe in the individual issues, but the parties as a whole have decided to adopt certain issues to gain the votes of the people who believe in those issues.

Zodiak

"Little independent thinking" was the phrase I used, not "no independent thinking". Social security reform is a VERY scary issue, even for Republicans. From visiting their own constituents during the push for Social Security reform (a push generated by the White House), that became rather clear. Citing one exception does not negate the rule.

If we wish to not have tyranny of the majority (which our forefathers did consider to be an undesirable possibility), then yes, this is how it should work for the democracy to remain stable.

I agree that what is "mainstream" is both a hard to define and plastic thing, which is why no one person or party should determine these things. However, a person who ruled consistently on the same side of each and every issue that comes before them would be a good place to start as a benchmark for extremism. Another would be views that are ideologically outside of the opinions of a majority of Americans consistently (not only one issue, but a vast majority of them).

That is what I mean by conscience....free to act according to the strict ethics of his/her profession. Oftentimes, when a judge is beholden to political pressure, that judge will cite precedent to serve his own or his party's purposes and ensure that he remains on the bench. When freed from that, the judge will act more according to the law when it dictates rather than to try to score political points. But I agree otherwise...the law should be the first thing considered, always.

I disagree with the argument that the left will support Democrats regardless of position. The gay marriage issue was skirted by the Democratic party in the last election, and they bled some supporters because of the failure to take a clear position. The bankruptcy bill, Hillary's assault on Grand Theft Auto, the confirmation of convicted criminals into governmental positions, the refusal to stand up on voting rights issues, and a number of other betrayals are really going to hurt centrist Democrats in the next election. This is in addition to all of the labor Democrats who have already defected to the moderate wing of the Republican party. Democrats do not walk in lock-step, and that is part of their problem.

Also, remember that the "party as a whole" does not exist with Democrats. The DNC and the DLC are diametrically opposed to each other and fighting each other like cats and dogs for the stewardship of the party. Howard Dean represents the push for a return to core party principles, and the DLC is trying their best to take him down in favor of "new Democratic" principles (pro-corporate, anti-union, pro-family values, more authoritarianism, etc.).

Well, I've hijacked this thread enough for a newbie (apologies to all). Thank you for the discussion and rebut away.

__________________
They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost!

Zach de la Rocha

Elphaba

This should get Rove off of the front pages:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will announce his pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court at 9 p.m. Tuesday, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Bush said at a midday news conference that he has considered a variety of people, and "I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is."

"I do have a obligation to think about people from different backgrounds but who share the same philosophy -- people who will not legislate from the bench," he said. "That's what I told the people when I ran for president."

O'Connor, 75, was the first woman appointed as a Supreme Court justice, and has served on the court since 1981.

Her replacement must be confirmed by the Senate, and senators have braced for a battle since she announced her retirement July 1.

Speculation about a replacement focused Tuesday on another woman: Edith Clement, a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Other names mentioned as a possible candidate include Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush's former legal adviser; federal appellate judges J. Michael Luttig and James Harvie Wilkinson, both of whom serve on the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; and another judge from the 5th Circuit, Emilio Garza.

Clement, 57, is considered a conservative judge by legal analysts.

"She's a member of the Federalist Society, which is a group of conservative lawyers that's been a great talent pool for Republican administrations over the past 20 years," said CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "But she is not someone who is very well-known in legal circles."

She received her law degree from Tulane University in 1973. She was a lawyer with a firm in New Orleans from 1975-1991 until she was appointed to U.S. District Court by the first President Bush.

The Senate confirmed her to the appellate bench in 2001 by a 99-0 vote.

This is the first Supreme Court vacancy since 1994, when President Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer. President Reagan appointed O'Connor, who took her seat as associate justice on September 25, 1981.

On Saturday, Bush said in his weekly radio address that he wanted the confirmation process to be nonpartisan.

"The nominee deserves fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote. I will make my nomination in a timely manner so the nominee can be confirmed before the start of the court's new term in October," he said in his weekly radio address.

The president said he has been working with senators on the nomination process.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met July 12 with four senators with key roles in the confirmation process: Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee; Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada; Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee; and the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The senators said afterward that potential nominees were discussed, although Bush did not offer any names. They did commit to having O'Connor's replacement in place by the start of the court's new term in October.

Bush also met separately with Specter at the White House Monday evening. The senator would not divulge what was discussed.

Specter indicated on "Fox News Sunday" that he favored someone more like O'Connor, who was often a swing vote on the court.

Bush, he said, should be able to stand "above the fray" and make an appointment that would be "in the national interest" -- not because he was "beholden to any group, no matter how much they contributed to his election."

"When you have these delicate questions, it's helpful to the country to have somebody who is a swing vote, which maintains the balance," Specter said.

The nominee is expected to meet with members of the Judiciary Committee next week before Congress takes a month off.

The Senate is scheduled to take a recess from August 1 through September 5, meaning confirmation hearings likely will begin after Labor Day.

Reid said hearings might last a "good long week" if the nominee is not controversial.

O'Connor remains at work; her retirement is effective when her successor is sworn in.

There had been speculation that Bush might have at least one more opening to fill on the court.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced Thursday that he has no plans to step down and will continue to serve as long as he can.

"I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement," Rehnquist said in a statement released through his family. "I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."

The 80-year-old has been battling thyroid cancer since October and underwent a tracheotomy as part of his treatment. He endured weeks of chemotherapy and radiation.

RusCrimson

At this time, there's less than an hour before the announcement. I'd like to know how many people actually watched the press conference.

Elphaba

The nominee is John Roberts. Let's look into his background folks.

Elphaba

From wikipedia, he has passed the rights' test on Roe v. Wade:

John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an American attorney, jurist, and political figure. He is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

On July 19, 2005, Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, who retired pending the confirmation of a replacement on July 1. Roberts was originally intended to be named by Bush in a live, nationwide television broadcast at 9 p.m. EST, but the choice was reported by the Associated Press at 7:47 p.m. EST, 73 minutes before the official announcment. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, he will take office for a lifetime term.

Roberts is 50 years old and the first Supreme Court nominee in 11 years. He is a practicing Catholic. He has three sisters, has a wife named Jane, and has two children, Jack and Josie.

Contents [hide]
1 Life and career
2 Political and judicial views
2.1 Reproductive rights
2.2 Enviromental regulation
3 Sources



[edit]
Life and career
Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York, and grew up in Indiana. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1976 and received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1979.

After graduation, Roberts became a law clerk for Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and held this post until the following year. From 1980 to 1981, he was a law clerk to then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court.

From 1981 to 1982, Roberts was a Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney General—William French Smith, under President Ronald Reagan—at the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1982, Roberts became the Associate Counsel to the President, and held this post until 1986.

Roberts entered private practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington, D.C.-based Hogan & Hartson law firm, but left to serve under George H.W. Bush in the Department of Justice from 1989 to 1993 as Principal Deputy Solicitor General. In this capacity, he argued about 39 cases before the Supreme Court, winning 25.

In 1992, Roberts was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but was opposed by Democrats and never received a vote. Roberts returned to Hogan & Harston as a partner in 1993 after Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential election.

Roberts was renominated to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush on January 7, 2001, to replace James L. Buckley. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 8 and received commission on June 2, 2003.

On July 19, 2005, Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, who retired pending the confirmation of a replacement on July 1. Roberts was originally intended to be named by Bush in a live, nationwide television broadcast at 9 p.m. EDT, in the East Room of the White House, but the choice was leaked and was reported by the Associated Press at 7:47 p.m. EDT, 73 minutes before the official announcement. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, he will take office for a lifetime term.

Roberts is currently a member of both the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.

[edit]
Political and judicial views
[edit]
Reproductive rights
In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, (1991)), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiæ, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."
It is likely that Roberts's own opinion on abortion and birth control will be questioned during his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

[edit]
Enviromental regulation
Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation.

Roberts has also argued on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of the legality of mountaintop removal, in the case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association.

[edit]
Sources
Barbash, Fred, et al. "Bush to Nominate Judge John G. Roberts Jr." Washington Post. July 19, 2005. [1]
Bumuller, Elisabeth, and David Stout. "President Chooses Conservative Judge as Nominee to Court." New York Times. July 19, 2005. [2]
Entous, Adam. "Bush picks conservative Roberts for Supreme Court." Reuters. July 19, 2005. [3]
"Roberts, John G., Jr." Federal Judicial Center. [4]
McFeatters, Ann. "John G. Roberts Jr. is Bush choice for Supreme Court." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. July 19, 2005. [5]
Riechmann, Deb. "Federal judge Roberts is Bush's choice." Associated Press. July 20, 2005. [6]
"Who Is John G. Roberts Jr.?" ABC News. July 19, 2005. [7]
Profile of John Roberts by Independent Judiciary [8]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr."

Elphaba

I would have preferred Clement as she was more likely to get senate approval. Nope, Bush made a stand for his extreme right constituancy. Roberts' intention to bring down Roe v. Wade will cause a senate war, in my opinion.

Rove should be thankful.