July 20, 2005

• If my source is correct, it'll be moooshy.
• The Honorable Justice Karl C. Rove. I mean, seriously -- would it surprise you?
• Dull.
• Julia Gibbons. I'm going for an extreme longshot so I'll look like a genius if I happen to be correct.
• Judge Judy.
• Walter the Wobot.
• Oh boy
• Ashcroft.
• I kinda knew this was a bad idea when i hit post. But I did it anyway. alas
• Give me some of that old fashioned tv justice. Judge Wapner. He exonerated Abraham.
• Moooshy? The Moooshy?
• Fuck Yeah! I'll second Judge Wapner!
• Al Haig? Good one on ya, Argh. Seems unlikely that the Pres would pick Atty. Gen'l Alberto Gonzales, but I'm intrigued by that possibility. Question from a monkey too young to remember the Clinton judicial appointments: is it normal for this sort of thing to be announced in prime-time, or is this something new?
• Al Gonzales. Totally.
• John Roberts (never heard of him? me neither.)
• Post is pointing at Roberts Seems some people are pointing at Roberts. Guess I shouldn't have gotten too excited about all the talk of a Edith Clemmen...knew bush would just pick some other white dude from a prep school. Pianistic - as a "senior democrat" cynically notes in the 2nd to last paragraph from the link above, all of this nomination talk has quietly shelved the scandal about Rove. here's the bugmenot not link for the post too...
• I read the two leading candidates were both named Edith. I think that the last time the two leading candidates for a position were both named Edith was in the Best Retirement Home Blowjob contest.
• Oh boy Scott Bakula?
• It's Roberts. 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." Invest in coathangers.
• John Roberts
• States will begin the outlaw of abortion immediately. Their laws will be suspended until a case reaches the Supreme Court. Next year the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. Immediately most states will write new laws which attempt to follow the guidelines set by the new case law. And abortion will then be illegal in many states.
• John "Three Steps Back" Roberts
• Right on, Argh, it's Roberts. But I'm not convinced that's a bad choice, payback regardless.
• I dunno, I read in The Week that Roberts' writings on abortion were characterized by a former colleague as not his personal opinion - he was working for the Reagan and Bush I administrations as a lawyer, and was asked to put forward his employers' beliefs, not his own. (Still, if that's the case... kind of weaselly.) He certainly doesn't seem as bad as at least one of the Ediths is on that score, though.... What struck me is his relative youth compared to the age of some of the other potential nominees (he's 50, there were 1 or 2 other possibilities in their late 40s, everyone else was older). My first thought was that El Arbustito is trying to stack the SCOTUS with justices who will be around for as long a time as possible, to dominate the court for a few more decades even if more liberal politicians return to power.
• "I read in The Week that Roberts' writings on abortion were characterized by a former colleague as not his personal opinion - he was working for the Reagan and Bush I administrations as a lawyer, and was asked to put forward his employers' beliefs, not his own." Which means he'll do it again.
• My first thought was that El Arbustito is trying to stack the SCOTUS with justices who will be around for as long a time as possible, to dominate the court for a few more decades even if more liberal politicians return to power. That is why I thought...Jenna
• he was working for the Reagan and Bush I administrations as a lawyer, and was asked to put forward his employers' beliefs, not his own. (Still, if that's the case... kind of weaselly.) Not weaselly at all. That's exactly what a lawyer is supposed to do.
• *Impregnates rocket88.* *Hands him a coathanger.*
• You can't be that dense, smallish bear. But just in case...fuck you. That's not what I meant and you fucking know it. The response I wrote three hours ago was much better, IMO, but I promised tracicle I'd try to play nice.
• I was sort of hoping that s.b.'s idiocy would pass unremarked. Oh, well.
• I know coathangers are a "joke" elsewhere on the internets, but remarks regarding coathangers in this thread (mine wasn't the only one, if you noticed) are references to unsafe, desperate measures that people take when they don't have access to safe legal abortions. So, yes, I said it that way because of it's shock value, but it's a very serious fucking problem that shouldn't be written off as a mere shocking/offending statement. This isn't an issue of whether his actions were "weaselly" or not. Are the decisions Roberts makes as a SCJ going to result in more situations like this? That's the real issue people are trying to address by discussing his brief regarding Roe before the supreme court, and talking about what a lawyer's job is only (delibrately?) obscures the issue. Your outrage over my comment is nothing compared to the potential outrage of women whose control over their own bodies hangs in the balance of the opinions of 9 people.
• In the old days someone woulda posted a kitten. Times they are a changin.
• Yes, but when does potential outrage become real outrage. At conception? The third trimester?
• What Roberts argues as a lawyer has no bearing on what he believes personally. Lawyers have to make the best case they can for the client paying them...they're sworn to do so. You may think that's weaselly, but I, for one, am glad they do it. A criminal defense lawyer, for example, may not believe their client is innocent, but they will still try their damndest to get them off. As someone who has paid too many lawyers outrageous sums of money over the last two years, at least I know I'm getting my money's worth of loyalty out of them. That being said, it sounds like Roberts may really be a true-blue neocon, and will align with the other Supreme douchebags to put the boots to not just Roe v. Wade, but every progressive legal decision of the last 30 years. If that's the case we'll just have to wait and see. Anyway...my outrage over your comment is long gone; as I realize your anger, while justified, is misdirected. I'm not part of your problem...I'm 110% pro-choice. But 51% of American voters wanted someone like Roberts in the SCOTUS, and the majority has gotten their way. Ain't democracy wonderful?
• I don't care what his opinions on abortion are. I'm more interested in his thought process. In by brief study of his opinions and etc& I am actually impressed with his conservative views. And Rocket88, you rock
• because I'm just a mainstream stooge, appreciate any authority I can get.
• I don't care what his opinions on abortion are. I'm more interested in his thought process. Yes, yes, yes! Thank you!
• as long as they're independent thought processes rather than being beamed directly from Bush's twisted little brain and it would be nice if he had the welfare of the nation on his mind instead of pondering how to line his wallet Time. Will. Tell.
• But 51% of American voters wanted someone like Roberts in the SCOTUS, and the majority has gotten their way. I'm starting to doubt that. The right is going to extreme lengths to hide his views (with comments along the lines of "he was just doing his job as a lawyer" among others). If these views are in line with the views of 51% of voters, why hide them? Bush's approval numbers are in the tank in every possible category- way below 51%- and they were way before rovegate hit the front pages. Bush thought that, by electing him to a second term, the people gave him a mandate on social security, and we all know how that turned out. Why assume the same mandate when it comes to a supreme court nomination? Polls were overwhelmingly in favor of the democrats having the right (even the obligation) to filibuster extremist judges the last time this came around several weeks ago, before the 14 senators signed the compromise. That 51% apparently meant nothing as far as bush's principles and policies go. And as for his thought process, sure, I'd like another Kennedy or O'Conner, but I'm just not that naive. His "thought processes" mean nothing if they're trumped by idealogical principles. And this tells me all I need to know about his principles.
• tangentially relevant data
• Well Replublican presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices in my lifetime who were assumed to be conservative, but who wound up being quite liberal. For example, Eisenhower brought in Earl Warren and Nixon went for Warren Burger. Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade were decided during their terms and with their support. Those are maybe the landmark decisions, from a liberal standpoint, in the last 50 or so years. I can't tell whether Roberts would take the same tack, but some things he's said have given me hope that he would. I suspect he'll be appointed, but lets not panic, yet. The ponderous responsibilites of Supreme Court-hood can have a surprising effect on the appointees.
• Bush has been out-thunked on this one.
• I don't think anyone can read Roberts accurately on this. I hope he's moderate, but then it's hard to tell when your nominee for Chief Justice spent less time on the bench than he did in law school. Doesn't matter, though. He's got it in a walk.
• He's enigmatic. Deliberately so, and this is worrying. Then again, something about the guy tells me he's his own man. Due to the Plame case and the multitude of people it tangentially affects in the administration, Bush could not nominate the people he probably had lined up. Roberts was a fall back and probably looked like a good one, but subsequent to this, Roberts has shown that he is a dark horse. The issue here is not Roe vs Wade. The issue here is what happens when Bush starts handing out pardons. How is the Supreme Court going to handle that. If the allegations and implications of the Plame outing turn out to be factual, then it is a much more serious issue than I think most people realise. I think Bush & Cheney wanted a ringer in there, a crony, but perhaps Roberts is not what they thought? It seems to me that he is more interested in himself, and is thinking of his own long term career more than Bush's short term needs. I think Bush & Cheney misplayed with the Roberts nomination. We shall see. He's a spooky fellow.