Confirming a political appointee without experience like Roberts

[BR_Parkway]

to the SCOTUS would be like putting a Horse show manager in charge of disaster relief.

Not that hard to say, not that hard for many to relate to.

Wonder if we could use Shrub's current 'dip' in the polls and the R-Incumbents who need to distance themselves from him to get re-elected to be able to prevent Roberts getting the seat?

Everyone's currently saying that he's sure to get the confirmation, but what a blow to the neocon's agenda if we could pressure enough R-Gasbags to vote NO.

[Sanity Claws]

1. He's a sitting judge on a court of appeals

He's argued cases in front of the US Supreme Court. Experience is not the issue with Roberts.

[DebJ]

2. Sorry, but I disagree. Two years is nothing. That's all he has.

Two years.

[merwin]

3. He's been in law for 20+ years. Not quite the same as appointing a

horse show guy to the head of FEMA. More like hiring someone who's been a firefighter for 20 years, and a fire chief for 2 years as the head of FEMA.

[tritsofme]

4. How about Earl Warren?

He was never a judge before Eisenhower appointed him as Chief Justice, and he was probably one of the greatest jurists ever to sit on the bench.

Roberts has argued 39 cases before the SCOUTS, and I doubt few are as qualified for the job as he is.

Obviously I don't have high hopes for Roberts, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

And I think he is probably the best nominee we could get out of this administration.

[BR_Parkway]

7. With the 'nuclear option' still a threat, Shrub's obvious disdain for

answering any Congressional questions since he knows he had enough (R) in his back pocket to never call him to task and total uncaring about trying to do anything that didn't divide the country more and more into Us against them, what makes you say that this was the best nominee that we could have gotten?

Why on earth would you think that Dubya didn't put exactly who he wanted in there? What evidence do you have to support your statement that somehow Shrub offered this guy as a compromise? I can't think of any reason why the admin wouldn't have shoved someone down our throats who was going to have the exact same ideology that they have.

And I'm quite willing to claim his 2 years as an appeals judge isn't seasoning enough for the top slot in the land. And to compare it to the other bumbling this mis-administration has done with all of their "loyalty & ideology first, competence and experience comes in a distant second" ideas about putting who they want in these positions is quite fine to me.

[tritsofme]

8. I'll take Roberts over Garza or Janice Rogers Brown any day

That's the type of nominee we will be battling in SDO's vacancy.

I don't think replacing one conservative with another is a travesty of justice.

And I don't think the Roberts vacancy is dividing the country.

I've seen polls where Bush's approval rating is 40% and support for Roberts is 60-70%.

Give me some names people that Bush would have actually nominated that would have been better than Roberts, I can't think of any.

And like I said earlier, the experience argument doesn't hold any water with me for the reasons I already stated.

[Az]

5. All they have to do is tie him to Brown in the public's mind

Bush appointed Brown with no experience and look what that brought us. Now he wants to appoint another lite in experience person but this time to a lifetime position and make him the head of the Supreme Court as well?

Puhlease.

[TheVirginian]

6. I'm going to defer to the ABA on this one

He is qualified for the position, and I don't think we can make a strong argument against that, even before you mention Warren's name.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi TheVirginian!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: