Libertarian Librarian

Last night, during the press confernece that he shared with Leahy, Schumer said, "There’s no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor." Schumer may not like the pick, but even he had to admit that Roberts appears to be qualified for the position.

And when Schumer asked Roberts about his judicial philosophy during the Senate confirmation process for the Circuit Court, Roberts replied, "My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. ... My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case." I like the concept of a judge who appears to believe in the limited role of the judiciary and in not legislating from the bench.

I think Ann Coulter wanted an über-conservative who would kick-off a huge battle and bring the filibuster issue back. She compares him to Souter, but I don't know if that is accurate.

I agree with Nick that it is a good sign when both Schumer and Coulter don't like this nominee. Besides, his son can dance!
 

I have only one major problem with the guy: his age. The man is only 50, and he is being nominated for life on the supreme court!! The guy could end up on the bench for 30 or more years!!! (50 if he is related to Jesse Helms.)
If we are going to continue to nominate these people for life, we should make them be old (frail would be good too), so we don't have to put up with them for long. Even if they are good, 30 years is too long in that important a position.
 

I don't think that age restriction would necessarily work for the Supreme Court as much as a term limit would. It would be interesting, however, to see such legislation put into place and be subsequently challenged and argued before the Supreme Court on the grounds of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
 

2 years of experience as a judge is "eminently qualified"?

Crap, men, I needed 4 years of experience just to get an Architect's license.


'legislating from the bench' is a strawman and a snappy sound bite, but basically meaningless. Judges can only respond to the cases brought before them. It's the responsibility of the 'Legislature' to enact laws. It isn't the judges' fault if the legislators have a lousy grasp of legality and constitutionality and attempt to write laws that need to be thrown out or radically modified later.

Limited roles of judges would be great - if the Republicans and the Supreme Court themselves would be consistent and not cherry pick occasions to be more... oh, let's say interventionist ... than others. For instance, I believe the SCOTUS went way beyond its authority in even taking on the case Bush v Gore, 2000. It was an unprecedented intervention into states' rights, a straight up violation of the basic tenets of Federalism.


[edited to remove unwarranted snark here]
 

Link

Interesting article from Bloomberg. I especially like the bit:

Bush accelerated his search for a Supreme Court nominee in part because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name, according to Republicans familiar with administration strategy.

Bush originally had planned to announce a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on July 26 or 27, just before his planned July 28 departure for a month-long vacation at his Crawford, Texas, ranch, said two administration officials, who spoke on the condition they not be named.

The officials said those plans changed because Rove has become a focus of Fitzgerald's interest and of news accounts about the matter.


[sarcasm] nice work, W. [/sarcasm]
 

TC, I disagree: legislating from the bench is very real. When a court decides that a centuries-old state constitution requires the recognition of same-sex marriage - an idea not even imaginable to its framers - that is legislating. Both sides are susceptible to it, but it is far more a problem created by the left, as judges are the only way they can enact their social agenda.

BTW, don't forget that it was 7 justices who found that Florida violated the 14th Amendment in Bush v. Gore.
 

Roberts probably would have more experience as a judge if his nominations to the Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. hadn't been held-up in committee in 1992 and 2001. Regardless, the man has been in the legal profession since just after he graduated from Harvard Law School in 1979. He has been a law clerk for Henry Friendly on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, a law clerk for then Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court, a Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith at the DOJ, Associate Counsel to President Reagan under Fred Fielding, an associate (and later partner) at the Hogan & Hartson law firm in Washington, D.C., a Deputy Solicitor General for the Department of Justice (where he won 25 of 39 cases argued before the Supreme Court), and (most recently) a judge on the Court Of Appeals For The D.C. Circuit. He has experience.

Bush v. Gore is a strawman, ad hominem, and it draws the focus from this nominee's qualifications and judicial philosophy. Yes, the Bush v. Gore case was unprecedented but, as noted by the majority opinion in the case, "None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of the President to the people, through their legislatures, and to the political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system has been forced to confront." If Gore hadn't started the legal ball rolling, the appeals wouldn't have ended up before the highest court in the land.

For the record, there was no statewide standard regarding what constituted a legal vote that could be used by each county in evaluating the ballots during Florida's recount. With counties using different standards, identically marked ballots in different counties may or may not have been counted, depending on each county's standards. This was found to be a violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by seven of the nine Justices, nullifying the recount.

The Court was required to provide a remedy, since the recounts were found to be unconstitutional. Since the day after oral arguments was the day required by 3 U.S.C. § 5 for each state to have selected its electors for the Electoral College, the Court needed to either override 3 U.S.C. § 5 and order Florida to institute a recount with a statewide standard, or to stop the recounts and accept the previously certified results. The latter was the remedy chosen.

Finally, the "Roberts nomination is a smoke-screen to distract the nation from Rove" line is about as relevant as the "Bill bombed bin Laden to block badgering over bimbo" line was in 1998.
 

from Greg: TC, I disagree: legislating from the bench is very real. When a court decides that a centuries-old state constitution requires the recognition of same-sex marriage - an idea not even imaginable to its framers - that is legislating. Both sides are susceptible to it, but it is far more a problem created by the left, as judges are the only way they can enact their social agenda.

You've inadvertently hit exactly upon the issue my friend. judges need, by necessity, to interpret the laws and constitutions regarding MODERN DAY situations. Perforce, this will occasionally involve situations the framers/ lawyers/ legislators did not anticipate. But just because the situation was not anticipated, does not make it less necessary or invalidate the actual NEED to make that interpretation.

I would also dipute that the idea of same-sex marriage was unimaginable to the 'framers' to which you refer. Homosexuals have been with us forever, regardless of what James Dobson and Rick Santorum maintain; I am confident that men such as Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, were fully aware of homosexuality among their peers; it doesn't take a stroke of genius to imagine the pairing of homosexuals. Maybe they didn't see a need to address it at the time; maybe they couldn't foresee the social advances necessary to create the acceptance of such a situation. In any case, the brilliance of the system that America has developed is that through the legislative and judical system, laws can be adapted to new conditions (as when slavery was abolished, segregation was outlawed, and contraception was legalized). And the judicial interpretation of these things is part and parcel of the system, federalism notwithstanding.

from mojo (obviously not nixon) Finally, the "Roberts nomination is a smoke-screen to distract the nation from Rove" line is about as relevant as the "Bill bombed bin Laden to block badgering over bimbo" line was in 1998.

didn't stop Rush, and the rest of the Republican party from making the argument, did it? It wasn't the nomination I was looking at, but the timing, and the reference to rushing the selection. I guess I would maintain that selection of a Supreme Court Justice is maybe a decision that could use a little time and dleiberation; but hey, I'm crazy that way.

I don't care why Roberts only has 2 years of experience; it's moot. The reality is that in 2 years he hasn't developed anything like an extensive range of work as a judge.

And referring to Bush v Gore cannot be a strawman as I wasn't arguing against it: I was using it as an example where I felt that the SCOTUS was exceeding its authority. In fact, the Court very nearly admits it in its own opinion, where it restricts the decision to this case in particular; doing so highlights that they were not interpreting a point of law, but creating an extension of a specific law (incidentally also representative of the kind of activism you profess to despise). It is illegal AND unconstitutional to create a law that applies to a single, specific case. And my reference there was certainly not ad hominem because, again, I was using it as an example, not a personal attack on anybody.
 

BTW, don't forget that it was 7 justices who found that Florida violated the 14th Amendment in Bush v. Gore.


That decision was 5-4.

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1437.html
 

didn't stop Rush, and the rest of the Republican party from making the argument, did it?

So, were Rush and some Republicans in the right to accuse President Clinton of authorizing bombings to distract from the Lewinsky situation? If not, then why do the same thing? Or, maybe, like you claim you are doing know, Rush and some Republicans weren't looking specifically at the strikes aimed at bin Laden/AQ, but at the timing of those strikes and the rush to launch missiles at the chosen targets. Maybe they just felt that the order to launch strikes thirteen days after our embassies were hit was a decision that could use a little time and deliberation.

Some of the intel that the Clinton administration used to determine the target in Sudan was collected over half-a-year before our embassies were hit. His administration had been looking at Sudan's ties to terror and, when our embassies were hit, it was the standing intel that was used in determining the response and the targets. I don't think that it was a knee-jerk reaction to distract from the Lewinsky situation, but rather a response planned over nearly two weeks based upon standing intel and the sources pointing to those responsible.

Likewise, the nomination that Bush presented wasn't some "pull a name from a hat" situation to distract from Rove. Since at least 2000, each presidential campaign has noted that our choice for President is important because whoever gets in office has a very good chance of being in the position to nominate a new Justice of the Supreme Court. The administration has undoubtedly been looking at candidates for quite some time now, not just since Justice O'Connor submitted her resignation.

You can play the "Rush and the Republicans were jerks, so I'm justified to do the same now" card if you like. That's politics. If you honestly believe, however, that the Bush administration hasn't spent plenty of time deliberating on who would be a qualified appointment to the Supreme Court, including looking at viable candidates prior to the recent vacancy, then I think you are a little off the mark.

I don't care why Roberts only has 2 years of experience; it's moot.

You may not care why Roberts has only been a judge for two years, but I would argue that there is practical significance in the fact that the side of the political aisle which twice obstructed Roberts' confirmation is now the same side that is complaining about him not being a judge for a longer period. Yes, the reality is that he has only been a judge for two years. Also a reality is that those two years are a single part of his over 25 years of experience in the legal field, both in private and public practice.

Bush v. Gore can be (and will be) argued ad infinitum. I can see how you could present your view of the case as an example of judicial activism, though it is a view that I continue to disagree with, and use it to try to paint the political right as guilty of the same legislation from the bench that they complain of. I still see it as ad hominem, however, since it does appear to me to be presented more as a criticism of the character of Republicans (Limited roles of judges would be great - if the Republicans and the Supreme Court themselves would be consistent and not cherry pick occasions to be more... oh, let's say interventionist ... than others) rather than as an argument regarding judicial activism/legislation from the bench.
 

From T.C.: That decision was 5-4.

No, not exactly. The decision regarding the remedy was 5 to 4 in favor of stopping further recounts and accepting the results which were certified on 26 November 2000. Justices Souter and Breyer, however, were the only two who dissented from the majority opinion that the Florida recounts, which lacked a statewide standard to identify a legal vote, violated the 14th Amendment.

"Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy." (No. 00–949 GEORGE W. BUSH, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, JR., ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT)
 

Nearly every liberal-dominated decision violates Amendment Ten.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 

Nearly every liberal-dominated decision violates Amendment Ten.

But not conservative dominated ones, eh?
 

But not conservative dominated ones, eh?

Name a couple.
 

JohnH said...
But not conservative dominated ones, eh?

Name a couple.

Hey, you started it. identify the supposed 'liberal dominated' decisions first, and let us all know just why they are supposedly liberal.