Is there a single fact in Roberts' background that would lead you to believe that he isn't conservative? I realize that he hasn't spent much time on the bench, but everything I read suggests that he's as far right as Scalia, only not an asshole.
I guess I'd ask the same question -- I don't know much about him, but I don't know anything that places him to the left of any conceivable point on the political spectrum. What do you know that makes you consider him less conservative than some possible alternative?
(There could easily be something, I just don't know what it is.)
Dobson's comments, and some from others regarding Bush being a "promise keeper," would seem to indicate that he is conservative enough for the base. What makes you think he's not?
I wouldn't put it quite that way. I think the surprising thing is that he isn't as demonstrably, paper-trail conservative (esp. w/r/t Roe) as we expected, regardless of his views. I was thinking we'd get someone with "pro-4-life" tattooed around his navel in gothic script.
Yeah, I've been reading a lot on the guy, and, in a sense, there's not much there. How well do his actions as a lawyer predict his actions as a judge? Not very well, probably. But, like the others above, I'm confused on what you mean when you say he's not conservative enough for Bush's base. Certainly, you can read his profile as anti-environmental, anti-choice, anti-seperation of church and state. What more do they want? A more thorough background in these things is possible, true.
All day yesterday I was pondering what kind of judge Bush would nominate. Was he more afraid of losing the christian right, or the "country club republicans." Is he more crafty than I expected? Has he found a judge who both sides can read their views into?
In case anyone is wondering if Roberts really is a partisan hack or not, Jeffrey Toobin's book "Too Close To Call" sheds some light on that subject:
The president's first two nominations to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia curcuit --- generally regarded as the stepping-stone to the Supreme Court --- went to Miguel Estrada and John G Roberts Jr., who had played important behind-the scenes roles in the Florida litigation.
Yes, important to remember is that we're trying to read a lot about him from not much info. Roberts, however, worked for Bush's dad. Bush knows this guy well.
He's pretty clearly a vote to overrule Roe. This, from Slate, mentions that while working for the Solicitor General, he wrote at least one brief (and I believe from other reading that I can't find quickly, that he wrote many) unambiguously taking that position. Now, that's not necessarily his personal view, but it seems fairly likely that it is.
"the core belief of the the Bush family is Business. They have to placate social conservatives and the rest of us, but what they're about is helping business. "
Uhh, well duh. It was obvious to anyone with eyes since before 2000 that the ONLY issue Bush cared about was routing money to the rich. Everything he does that's not directly related to that is basically designed to fool the rubes into supporting him so that he can do that. I mean it's not like he takes terrorism or medicaid or social security seriously; but damn, those tax cuts go through year after year; and while Iraq does nothing but help terrorism, it buys support of the red states while also allowing levels of corruption not seen since the Civil War if then.
"In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States."
There are statements by wingnuts saying how happy they are about the choice. I think you can safely conclude he's good for the base. If they aren't overly excited, it's because they want all the seats that come up; you don't start celebrating at halftime. (Or, if Stevens goes, after the first quarter.)
I mean if you've seen him ATM...a wink's as good as a nudge, ya know what I mean.
Oh, it's possible he thinks Roe is good law, you don't necessarily hold every position you adopt in a brief, but on a matter that ideological it would be normal to have the brief written by someone who agreed with it. I'd be surprised if he isn't an anti-Roe vote.
(And re your Whole Foods comment: what is wrong with you? Geez.)
You know it's no fun making racially insensitive comments unless someone is humorlessly PC about it, right? Just making sure you get that little transgressive thrill.
I think he wanted to put someone through who'd be bulletproof, and it will probably work. It doesn't seem that complicated to me, strategically. He wanted to flummox the Dems, while nominating someone that his base would be satisfied with. This guy fits remarkably well.
I think someone in the Senate should ask about his views on corporate personhood. Though everyone will know the answer already.
I wonder when corporations are going to be granted the legal right to vote.
Basically, I'm just giving you shit here, but making a joke about big black women being on sale, whether at Whole Foods or anyplace else? Racially insensitive.
Oh, I didn't think that they might be on sale (where's your mind, LB?); just that they'd be there--just like I go to Whole Foods hoping to find earthy women who like to eat well.
Roberts strikes me as a George H.W. Bush Republican, not a George W. Bush Republican. I.e., conservative like Pappy, not conservative like Judge Roy Moore of the 10 Commandments statue fame. I.e., a business-oriented conservative, not a religious-oriented conservative.
In short, Roberts strikes me as what a conservative was before the American Taliban took over the Republican Party. Which, I suspect, is as good as we'll get out of the Bush Administration. At least the old-line conservatives like Goldwater and Nixon were generally sane albeit often crooked, unlike the religious nutballs who have taken over the Party since the time of Goldwater and Nixon.
Hamdan is kind of scary--carte blanche to the executive on Gitmo tribunals even if they're contrary to international law.
Wacky environmental stuff too. Very willing to say that environmental groups lack standing to sue. Chris Clarke has more. I sort of think that I would have preferred Luttig.
Is there a single fact in Roberts' background that would lead you to believe that he isn't conservative? I realize that he hasn't spent much time on the bench, but everything I read suggests that he's as far right as Scalia, only not an asshole.
Posted by Duvall | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:36 PM
I didn't say he wasn't conservative.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:38 PM
I guess I'd ask the same question -- I don't know much about him, but I don't know anything that places him to the left of any conceivable point on the political spectrum. What do you know that makes you consider him less conservative than some possible alternative?
(There could easily be something, I just don't know what it is.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:40 PM
Dobson's comments, and some from others regarding Bush being a "promise keeper," would seem to indicate that he is conservative enough for the base. What makes you think he's not?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:44 PM
I can't tell you.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:47 PM
I wouldn't put it quite that way. I think the surprising thing is that he isn't as demonstrably, paper-trail conservative (esp. w/r/t Roe) as we expected, regardless of his views. I was thinking we'd get someone with "pro-4-life" tattooed around his navel in gothic script.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:47 PM
Yeah, I've been reading a lot on the guy, and, in a sense, there's not much there. How well do his actions as a lawyer predict his actions as a judge? Not very well, probably. But, like the others above, I'm confused on what you mean when you say he's not conservative enough for Bush's base. Certainly, you can read his profile as anti-environmental, anti-choice, anti-seperation of church and state. What more do they want? A more thorough background in these things is possible, true.
All day yesterday I was pondering what kind of judge Bush would nominate. Was he more afraid of losing the christian right, or the "country club republicans." Is he more crafty than I expected? Has he found a judge who both sides can read their views into?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:47 PM
From Hullabaloo, Digby's Blog:
In case anyone is wondering if Roberts really is a partisan hack or not, Jeffrey Toobin's book "Too Close To Call" sheds some light on that subject:
The president's first two nominations to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia curcuit --- generally regarded as the stepping-stone to the Supreme Court --- went to Miguel Estrada and John G Roberts Jr., who had played important behind-the scenes roles in the Florida litigation.
Posted by MMGood | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:48 PM
I meant what Labs says in 6. He doesn't excite Bush's base, I should have said.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:51 PM
Yes, important to remember is that we're trying to read a lot about him from not much info. Roberts, however, worked for Bush's dad. Bush knows this guy well.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:51 PM
They seem pretty excited on NPR. At least as much as I could stand to listen to. I haven't seen any non-happy reactions to the nomination.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:52 PM
You didn't hear any excited people on NPR; don't lie.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:52 PM
He's pretty clearly a vote to overrule Roe. This, from Slate, mentions that while working for the Solicitor General, he wrote at least one brief (and I believe from other reading that I can't find quickly, that he wrote many) unambiguously taking that position. Now, that's not necessarily his personal view, but it seems fairly likely that it is.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:53 PM
Excited for them. Too much excitement is a sin.
(going to the just-opened Whole Foods! bbl.)
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:54 PM
They have big black ladies at your Whole Foods? Yummy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:55 PM
"the core belief of the the Bush family is Business. They have to placate social conservatives and the rest of us, but what they're about is helping business. "
Uhh, well duh. It was obvious to anyone with eyes since before 2000 that the ONLY issue Bush cared about was routing money to the rich. Everything he does that's not directly related to that is basically designed to fool the rubes into supporting him so that he can do that. I mean it's not like he takes terrorism or medicaid or social security seriously; but damn, those tax cuts go through year after year; and while Iraq does nothing but help terrorism, it buys support of the red states while also allowing levels of corruption not seen since the Civil War if then.
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:57 PM
LB, Ann Coulter says he said,
For what it's worth.
Again, I'm sure he's quite conservative.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 2:57 PM
There are statements by wingnuts saying how happy they are about the choice. I think you can safely conclude he's good for the base. If they aren't overly excited, it's because they want all the seats that come up; you don't start celebrating at halftime. (Or, if Stevens goes, after the first quarter.)
I mean if you've seen him ATM...a wink's as good as a nudge, ya know what I mean.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:01 PM
Yeah, the more I read, the more they seem cool with the pick, but I still expected someone more firebreathing.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:02 PM
Oh, it's possible he thinks Roe is good law, you don't necessarily hold every position you adopt in a brief, but on a matter that ideological it would be normal to have the brief written by someone who agreed with it. I'd be surprised if he isn't an anti-Roe vote.
(And re your Whole Foods comment: what is wrong with you? Geez.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:03 PM
Wait till they get Stevens' seat. Many fireworks will you see on the way to the internment camp.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:04 PM
I think fair-skinned ladies are yummy too, LB, no need to get tetchy.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:07 PM
You know it's no fun making racially insensitive comments unless someone is humorlessly PC about it, right? Just making sure you get that little transgressive thrill.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:09 PM
I think he wanted to put someone through who'd be bulletproof, and it will probably work. It doesn't seem that complicated to me, strategically. He wanted to flummox the Dems, while nominating someone that his base would be satisfied with. This guy fits remarkably well.
I think someone in the Senate should ask about his views on corporate personhood. Though everyone will know the answer already.
I wonder when corporations are going to be granted the legal right to vote.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:11 PM
Was it racially insensitive? I'm not sure I see that. I was going for the deliberate misunderstanding thrill.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:11 PM
I thought it was meant to be a weight-insensitive comment.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:11 PM
Wow, it's like the Rorschach of insensitive comments.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:13 PM
It's actually about the Jews!
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:13 PM
I'm not sure I see that.
Basically, I'm just giving you shit here, but making a joke about big black women being on sale, whether at Whole Foods or anyplace else? Racially insensitive.
Look, someone has to be humorlessly PC.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:14 PM
Oh, I didn't think that they might be on sale (where's your mind, LB?); just that they'd be there--just like I go to Whole Foods hoping to find earthy women who like to eat well.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:16 PM
I am humbled: your superior PCdom has exposed the latent racial insensitivity concealed beneath my objection to your comment.
Quick, everyone look over there!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:21 PM
humorally-challenged, LB, humorally-challenged
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:21 PM
That's not a nice thing to say to a woman with no arms.
("How do I type?" you ask? Badly.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:23 PM
Silly LB, you're thinking of the humerus.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:24 PM
Curses, oversensitive again. (And my nose is getting sore from all of this typing.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:25 PM
Ok, maybe "differently-humored"? "Satirically-impaired"?
There's got to be a PC term for this.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:25 PM
Nothing can be as good as the term for 'dead' I saw somewhere: Metaphysically challenged.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:27 PM
LB, if you're typing with your nose, how do you manage capital letters?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:27 PM
'Caps Lock', letter, 'Caps Lock' works. (Symbols, now -- those are trickier.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:31 PM
is metaphysically challenged a douglas adams line?
Posted by Ian D-B | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:31 PM
No hyphens for differently humored, satirically impaired, humorally challenged.
. . . I tried to make a joke with Hume-morally challenged, and I'll do it if I keep seeing these hyphens.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:35 PM
what-ever
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:42 PM
Roberts strikes me as a George H.W. Bush Republican, not a George W. Bush Republican. I.e., conservative like Pappy, not conservative like Judge Roy Moore of the 10 Commandments statue fame. I.e., a business-oriented conservative, not a religious-oriented conservative.
In short, Roberts strikes me as what a conservative was before the American Taliban took over the Republican Party. Which, I suspect, is as good as we'll get out of the Bush Administration. At least the old-line conservatives like Goldwater and Nixon were generally sane albeit often crooked, unlike the religious nutballs who have taken over the Party since the time of Goldwater and Nixon.
- Badux the Snarky Penguin
Posted by BadTux | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 3:50 PM
Hamdan is kind of scary--carte blanche to the executive on Gitmo tribunals even if they're contrary to international law.
Wacky environmental stuff too. Very willing to say that environmental groups lack standing to sue. Chris Clarke has more. I sort of think that I would have preferred Luttig.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 4:01 PM
They have big black ladies at your Whole Foods?
Our checkout lady. Her name was Queen.
And, I am OUTRAGED by LB's comment implying that people with no arms type with their noses! FOR SHAME! Some use their toes.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:30 PM
One could hold a pen in one's teeth and use it to depress the keys.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:33 PM
Or a pencil, Ben, or a pencil.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:34 PM
Voice-to-text.
I'm sorry, are those hyphens incorrect?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:36 PM
Or men could use the Flynn method. Typing can't be that much more difficult than playing piano.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 5:59 PM
Smaller keys make it more difficult for the fantastically endowed among us.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:00 PM
Thanks, Ben. I was too modest to bring that up on my own behalf.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:04 PM
You are, indeed, too modest to have a reason to bring that up, Michael.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:32 PM
Your mom is lying and hurtful.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 07-20-05 6:58 PM
Conservative judge, Roberts
Conservative judge, one of the nominees
As long as you don't eat sperm
I'm sure you're going to be confirmed
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-21-05 6:55 AM