Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Meet Bush's Bork!



WASHINGTON, DC (PIMP)--Tonight, George W. Bush announced his first-string choice for associate justice of the Supreme Court: Buffalo native John G. Roberts.

Completely unrelated tangent: When I was in elementary school, I had a friend named John Gee. For a whole year, I asked him, "John G. what?" After a while he started telling me, "John G. House." Probably because "John G. Supreme Court" wasn't catchy. Too bad; that would have been a cool-ass coincidence, wouldn't it? Anyway, back to the news:

Roberts currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the district covering Washington D.C.; Bush appointed him to the position in June 2003. This relative lack of higher-court experience is supposedly offset by the 39 times Roberts has argued cases before the Supreme Court. Hell, I've argued lots of Supreme Court cases myself, though mostly with fellow political-science students. No word on whether Congress will also consider Roberts' possible experience watching "People's Court." But considering that he spent the period of that show's original 1981-93 run in such capacities as Justice William Rehnquist's clerk, associate counsel to Ronald Reagan and principal deputy solicitor general (among others), the show probably factored considerably. As long as we're counting that sort of thing.

By all accounts, Roberts has a reputation as a reliable conservative judge who nevertheless shies away from the major issues. Oh, except that in 1990 he cowrote a legal briefing suggesting that Roe V. Wade be overturned. Hey, the litmus is bleeding red, folks!

CBS News quoted the Republicans as calling Roberts their "dream candidate" in part because he "leaves a short paper trail." Well, isn't that promising?

Bush said of Roberts, "In my meetings with him, I have been genuinely impressed." Dick Cheney refused to comment on whether he had ever seen Roberts before that night. The man some call president also described Roberts as "a man of character." He declined, however, to elaborate on what kind of character.

If you, as a concerned citizen, are still in any doubt as to where you stand on Roberts potentially appearing nude in the next printing of Jon Stewart's "America: the Book," then heed the words of MSNBC:

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”"

So Roberts says he will obey the decisions prompted by judicial activism. It remains to be seen how his comment will gibe with Bush's promise that Roberts "will not legislate from the bench."

Grease up that chain, kids, because a lot of backpedaling might soon be in order.

7 comments:

wobbleboard said...

So, as deputy solicitor general he opposed the Roe decision, but as an appeals court nominee he said he'd "fully and faithfully applying that precedent"?

Maybe the right-wingers can lend us the flip-flops they waved around last year.

(BTW, I hear Roberts lied about his Purple Hearts, too. And his wife is CIA.)

rhonda said...

scaryyyy.....

Mikel said...

That guy in Washington was once so impressed by his drug dealer....he married her.

Mikel said...

That same guy in Washington is also impressed by those who can release flatulence (that means "fart..Dubyah")on command.

PusBoy said...

I'm really not sure what the hell Mikel is talking about, but . . . .

It really is a different situation being confirmed for a Circuit Court of Appeals seat than it is with a SCOTUS seat.

It's easy to say, "The Supreme Court already ruled on this, so I'll comply with it" when you're just on the Court of Appeals. That's pretty much expected. It's what's you're supposed to do. (Cue Chris Rock.)

On the Supreme Court, however, he can do whatever the hell he wants. There is no precedent as far as he's concerned. If the Court grants a writ of certiori, then it's saying there is no precedent upon which to rule (sometimes, that's crap) and they need to take a look at it.

If a case challenging Roe were to start evolving now, there's no reason to think that at least four justices would grant cert (the number required for the court to hear a case). Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and now this guy could make it happen very easily. Then, you just gotta beat Kennedy in the head until he votes with you.

Ian McGibboney said...

PusBoy, Mikel is with us, believe me. If only you could meet him in person, you'd understand.

Also, what you say about the SCOTUS actively shaping precedent is absolutely true. Still, in order to overturn Roe v. Wade (or any other matter of settled law), a case still has to challenge enough tenets to 1) make it as far as the Supreme Court and 2) offer enough of a compelling circumstance to warrant a complete overhaul of the law. While certainly not impossible, it's still unlikely at this point. At least I hope.

Mikel said...

PusBoy, Bush said of Roberts, "In my meetings with him, I have been genuinely impressed." I was merely mentioning a couple of other things that have impressed the current President of the United States of America - God Bless us all!