Okay, THIS Is Insane.

[badstar]

Bush picks Roberts to replace Rehnquist (no registration to read)


Even if you agree with the nomination for the guy for Supreme Court at all...he's only had about 2 years experinece as a judge...NO WAY should he be Chief Justice!

I'm really confused by this paragraph...

"The selection of Roberts, who has drawn little criticism, helps Bush avoid new political problems when he already is under fire for the government’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and his approval ratings in the polls are at the lowest point of his presidency."

Little criticism? Whatever happened to that whole threat to filibuster? (Which they're allowed to do, as long as they don't do it.)

Okay people...start writing some letters, emails, faxes, make phone calls to your congress people...I'm not even talking about my thoughts on the guy's politics here. (I'm far too ired by this to write rationaly abut that) I'm talking about sheer JOB EXPERIENCE for the highest judicial seat in our country!

I am glad that O'Connor is staying until she's replaced.

And here's a little blurb on Mister Roberts from Wikipedia...

"John Glover Roberts, Jr. (born January 27, 1955) is an American attorney and jurist. Since 2003 he has been a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Roberts previously spent fourteen years in private law practice and held positions in Republican Administrations in the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel."

Two years kids...think about that.

Comments

[liritsvoice.livejournal.com]

bush seriously looks like a very confused monkey in that first article

[sunneyone.livejournal.com]

caue he... is?

[liritsvoice.livejournal.com]

excellent point. :-) (btw, i was just curious and glanced at your profile. wanna be friends?)

[sunneyone.livejournal.com]

okay! :) i love new friends! :)

[sunneyone.livejournal.com]

you qouted one of my favorite cure songs in your profile. :)

John Roberts

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

Remember the Supreme Court has had many people step immediately to Chief Justice. Do you even know what the Chief Justice does? Here's a hint: He or she has one vote. That's it. Here's another clue: The most often dissenting Chief Justices, Breyer and Scalia, ageeed over 66% of the time. That's because the Supreme Court decides matters of Consitutional Law, and while its opinions are very influential, law is written by Congress. If you are scared about Roe v. Wade or some other matter of law, go yell at a legislator to get what you wnat passed locally. God knows waiting for a state or federal government takes forever (I work for one).

Roberts has been in front of the Court for 25 years, as a solicitor, clerk and attorney in private practice. You are dismissing much of his background, which leads me to believe you are looking for negatives. Never mind that he got over 170 signature on his recomendation to the Supreme court by both Democrats and Republicans, his "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, or any number of other legal qualifications. You oppose him, near as I can tell, because you oppose the man who nominated him.

In the two Clinton nominations, Breyer and Ginsburg, both passed with 89 and 96 votes. They passed because the GOP wisely felt that the President is entitled his choice and that such stalling tactics would lead to purposeless gridlock. Bush has the nucelar option if the Democrats wanted to, but the gang of 14 indicates they're not going to do that. So you can pretty much kill that idea.

Additionally, a few (dont have exact count) justices were sent straight to the Chief Justice role after the prior Chief Justice passed away, so it's not unprecedented.

Remember that if the Democratic party is to reverse its recent losses in government, it has to come up with a coherent message of political principle, not just "Bush Sucks." It's prefectly OK to say "Bush Sucks", but you need a plan of action after it, and thus far, teh Democratic move towards "Blame Bush for everything" isn't going to work until there's a framework of alternate ideas. It's like Letterman (himself a democrat) put it.. "Recently, John Kerry has condemned President Bush for failing to address the sudden pull downard of another natural resource... Leaves are falling everywhere, and Bush is not doing enough about it."

If you want to oppose John Roberts, it has to be more than his views or his nominator, you have to find specific legal references that make him dangerous, like Robert Bork (from the fruitcake right) in 1987. Otherwise, fuggedabout it.