SCOTUS: Let the games begin!

[amicus]

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

Lousiana Judge Edith Clement has been mentioned on CNN as the likely appointee.

Thought I would give youse guys a head start to prepare opposition.

amicus, always the nice guy...

 

[elsol]

In other rulings, Garza dissented from a 5th Circuit decision in 2001 affirming a lower court decision to grant a prisoner's habeas corpus petition. The prisoner established that his attorney had slept through major portions of his trial. Garza argued that the claim of ineffective counsel was insufficient because the prisoner failed to show that the trial's outcome was prejudiced by the sleeping lawyer.

NOT him.

I know it's bad to judge someone on 'one' decision, but stupidity to this scale shouldn't be tolerated.

It's like the Rep beeatch in Florida who argued that 'innocence' shouldn't override the 'rule of law'.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Guest]

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

Lousiana Judge Edith Clement has been mentioned on CNN as the likely appointee.

Thought I would give youse guys a head start to prepare opposition.

amicus, always the nice guy...

He's pushing matters just a bit, isn't he?

Before Karl Rove hit the fan, the president's discussions centered around having a selection by October.

But - what a grand way to divert attention from the current White House debacle.

Such a weasel.

 

[Alex756]

He's pushing matters just a bit, isn't he?

Before Karl Rove hit the fan, the president's discussions centered around having a selection by October.

But - what a grand way to divert attention from the current White House debacle.

Such a weasel.

Actually the plan was to have an appointment THROUGH by october when the new term begins and speculation was that meant an announcement by the end of July. So granted, it is a few days early.

--A

 

[Guest]

Actually the plan was to have an appointment THROUGH by october when the new term begins and speculation was that meant an announcement by the end of July. So granted, it is a few days early.

--A

Yes, that's true, isn't it?

Still.

He's a weasel.

 

[Pure]

ok, guys

all you seers, who's it gonna be?

(I can see some temporizing now, if so, I think someone like Garza will be next).

 

[elsol]

Gonzales...

The Republicans want the Latin community in their pocket.

a) Putting up Gonzales makes the Republicans look good.

b) The Democrats shooting down Gonzales makes them look bad.

c) The Democrats could blow a lot of their ammo fighting a weird 'moderate' and not have enough to fight a true conservative.

If I were Rove... I'd put up Gonzales (let him get shot down) and then put up a conservative female.

Democrats would look HORRIBLE shooting down a Latino and then a female.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Liar]

all you seers, who's it gonna be?

Petit moi.

 

[Guest]

Who is SCOTUS and what game will he be playing?

Rounders?

Golf?

Football?

Badminton?

Lawn bowls?

Croquet?

Lacrosse?

Surely not CRICKET!?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If he's true to form, Bush will go with an ultra conservative minority.

 

[amicus]

90 minutes to lift off...it being 7:30 on the East coast.

Speculation has run rampant through the prime time cable news pundits; seems like Judge Edith Brown Clements flame has flickered.

Latest guess is Judge Michael Luttig, a strict constructionist Judge that would be the choice of most all conservatives.

Luttig...there's a name for you to chew on.

Sorry Tatelou it was SCROTUM, I had a typo but it goes with POTUS and FLOTUS, is is that a lotus blossom....or a cherry tree...damned old age anyway....


the amicable amicus....

 

[Guest]

Just announced -

John G. Roberts
50 years old
District of Columbia D. C. Circuit Court
Clerk to Renquist

 

[amicus]

Ya beat me to it girl....good on you...but I have not yet heard the confirmation, only a News Alert....


we shall see...

 

[Guest]

John G. Roberts

Nominated to United States Court of Appeals, Washington, D.C. Circuit.

* Former Deputy Solicitor for Kenneth Starr.

* Associate White House counsel for four years under the Reagan Administration.

* Overturning Roe was such a primary focus of the Reagan Administration's Justice Department that during an oral argument by the nominee to the Supreme Court a Justice asked, "Mr. Roberts, in this case, are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?" His reply was, "No your honor, the issue doesn't even come up." To this the justice replied, "Well that hasn't prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases."*

* As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."**

* As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Operation Rescue and named individuals who routinely blocked access to clinics. The brief argued that the protesters’ behavior did not discriminate against women and that blockades and clinic protests were protected speech under the First Amendment. This case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, spurred the Congress to enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

* Lead counsel for Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Ky, Inc. v. Williams. The case involved a woman who was fired after asking Toyota for accommodations to do her job after being diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. The court ruled that while this condition impaired her ability to work, it did not impair her ability to perform major life activities. Disability rights groups fear that this decision may erode the Americans with Disabilities Act.

* Filed an amicus brief in Adarand v. Mineta in Oct. 2001, supporting a challenge to federal affirmative action programs. He also argued against Title IX as applied to the NCAA in NCAA v. Smith.

 

[JamesSD]

Ok, I wrote up something on Clement, but then the announcement came write around when I posted.

Roberts will be held up big time. Looks like we've got a fight on our hands.

 

[amicus]

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956


D.C. Circuit Judge Gets on Supreme Court Short List
Tony Mauro
Legal Times
02-22-2005


"...By contrast, Roberts, with 20 months on the D.C. Circuit, has few opinions or other writings that have attracted enemies. As a result, some conservatives have made unflattering comparisons between Roberts and Supreme Court Justice David Souter, whose short stint on the 1st Circuit before being appointed in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush failed to reveal Souter's moderate-to-liberal leanings on some issues.

Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas...."


excerpts from article at the link above...


Works for me.

 

[Guest]

Here's a link to a group in opposition to his appointment to the D. C. Court in 2001.

(First paragraph)

John G. Roberts, nominated by President Bush to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Court, has a record of hostility to the rights of women and minorities. He has also taken controversial positions in favor of weakening the separation of church and state and limiting the role of federal courts in protecting the environment. yadda yadda yadda

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomf...ry.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

 

[Guest]

Ok, I wrote up something on Clement, but then the announcement came write around when I posted.

Roberts will be held up big time. Looks like we've got a fight on our hands.

Which is what Bush wants.

Like a magician.

As he waves his arms with this ultra-conservative appointment (as Colly told us he would) half the country will be embroiled in angry defense of their rights.

Meanwhile, the Karl Rove hitting the fan will suddenly lose a bit of focus, getting less and less airtime, slowly, quietly fading away . . .

It's brilliant. I wonder who told him to do it?

 

[amicus]

I confess...I did it.

 

[Guest]

I confess...I did it.

OK - that made me laugh.

First thing on this thread that did!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Which is what Bush wants.

Like a magician.

As he waves his arms with this ultra-conservative appointment (as Colly told us he would) half the country will be embroiled in angry defense of their rights.

Meanwhile, the Karl Rove hitting the fan will suddenly lose a bit of focus, getting less and less airtime, slowly, quietly fading away . . .

It's brilliant. I wonder who told him to do it?

There is another angle no one has mentioned. The moderate repubs who hammered out a deal with the Dems to keep a vote from occuring on the so called "Nuclear Option", that is voting on a rules change that would end the filibuster.

Clearly, no Dem can support this guy. If enough moderate Repubs also repudiate him, it isn't a big deal, but if not, the dems will filibuster and it is likely First will move for a vote on the nuclear option. A choice so obviously odious to Democrats does have the otential there to destroy the fragile moderate alliance that avoided the nuclear option vote the first time around.

We may take it for granted that any Bush appointee will be Anti-woman, Anti-roe, and anti-separation of church & state. So the real question isn't where he stands on those issues, but how he stands on more moderate, less inflamatory issues, where his positions aren't so clearly defined by partisan politics. In short, does he have enough unpopular views to keep the GOP majority from pushing him through?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

On a tangental point, where is Wildcard? I think he doth have some crow to be eating

 

[Guest]

On a tangental point, where is Wildcard? I think he doth have some crow to be eating

That's delicious.

 

[Pure]

signs of intelligence

i think Roberts is a canny choice, one that stands out from GWB's bumblings of late.

excellent judicial background, clerking for Rehnquist, Harvard law school and Law Review

many Dems voted for him last time around.

i'd say he's gonna get in.

which raises the question: if you're NOT on the right would you rather have a *good mind* in a conservative opponent/enemy, or a lacklustre one (like Thomas)? (for Chief Justice, would you rather have Scalia than Thomas? or vice versa?)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

i think Roberts is a canny choice, one that stands out from GWB's bumblings of late.

excellent judicial background, clerking for Rehnquist, Harvard law school and Law Review

many Dems voted for him last time around.

i'd say he's gonna get in.

which raises the question: if you're NOT on the right would you rather have a *good mind* in a conservative opponent/enemy, or a lacklustre one (like Thomas)? (for Chief Justice, would you rather have Scalia than Thomas? or vice versa?)

From what I've read, his most salient quality is that he practiced corporate law, solitle of his career as a lawyer will be controversail and he has rendered few important decisions from the bench. And he's only 50. Should he make it, he will be there a long time, barring the unforseen.