oh. my. god. - Roberts background

[mzteris]

. . . record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.


Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)


Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)





Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.



Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)



Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)


Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)



Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)

In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.

[havocmom]

1. Got some links for us with hard to convince Congressmen?

It would sure help.

Thanks mucho for the post. Very informative.

[Thrill]

3. Won't be confirmed

He won't even be able to get the Collins and Snowe's to vote for this guy.

[Jacobin]

14. He got a 14 to 3 vote out of committee when he was appointed to

the DC appeal court......that means a bunch of senior democrats already have voted for him.

Gonna be hard to backtrack now.

[Tigress DEM]

35. Scary thing is this guy could be an honest attempt at moderation...

in Bush terms. He's hard headed and awful, but isn't quite as slimy as some of the other appointments.

Not that I'm defending him, just that it's scary that Bush is backed into a corner with the Rove thing and could honestly be saying, "What? Why don't you like THIS one?"

[Cronus Protagonist]

44. Nothing Bush does is honest - don't fall for the trap

NOTHING. NADA. ZILCH.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[PaDem]

33. This guy will absolutely be confirmed.........

he was picked with that in mind.

[mzteris]

4. sorry

in my haste I forgot the link.........

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais

[havocmom]

19. Thank you for that. Very handy and educational

:thumbsup:

[The Jacobin]

2. Push that nuclear button

b/c I want to see a filibuster over this.
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[tk2kewl]

5. My hero!

:loveya:


:sarcasm:

[pacalo]

6. I found this...

(...)Senate Democrats will try to distinguish between conservatives and moderates by focusing on the candidates' views of Roe v. Wade. But the more important distinction is between principled conservatives (who believe in deference to legislatures through judicial restraint) and conservative activists (who are determined to use the courts to strike at the heart of the regulatory state). The activists want to resurrect what they call the "Constitution in Exile," enforcing limits on federal power, that have been dormant since the New Deal, in part through narrow interpretation of the interstate commerce clause (see "Supreme Mistake," November 8). By this standard, four of Bush's candidates are troubling while the other four could be embraced by Democrats with cautious optimism.

Apparently, Roberts fits into the principled conservatives category...

John Roberts, 49. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit. Top of his class at Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for Rehnquist, Roberts is one of the most impressive appellate lawyers around today. Liberal groups object to the fact that, in 1990, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts signed a brief in a case involving abortion-financing that called, in a footnote, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But it would be absurd to Bork him for this: Overturning Roe was the Bush administration's position at the time, and Roberts, as an advocate, also represented liberal positions, arguing in favor of affirmative action, against broad protections for property rights, and on behalf of prisoners' rights. In little more than a year on the bench, he has won the respect of his liberal and conservative colleagues but has not had enough cases to develop a clear record on questions involving the Constitution in Exile. On the positive side, Roberts joined Judge Merrick Garland's opinion allowing a former employee to sue the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for disability discrimination. He pointedly declined to join the unsettling dissent of Judge David Sentelle, a partisan of the Constitution in Exile, who argued that Congress had no power to condition the receipt of federal transportation funds on the Metro's willingness to waive its immunity from lawsuits. In another case, however, Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that "the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California," and therefore could not affect interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Roberts appears willing to draw sensible lines: He said that he might be willing to sustain the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on other grounds. All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/orig_post_view.php?orig_post_id=660

[tk2kewl]

8. sounds like an activist to me after reading the intial post that

started this thread

[tk2kewl]

9. sounds like an activist to me after reading the intial post that

started this thread

[oxbow]

7. The White House WANTED a contentious nominee

the coming battle and possible use of the filibuster will take public attention away from Rovergate. They know that we will take the bait and begin arguing about Roberts now. The problem is, we have no choice. We must prepare for a long battle, and try to keep both issues on the frontburner somehow

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Fitz will continue his work. The Abu Ghraib pics are due out. There is

plenty more that can go wrong for this admin, scotus fight or no.

Plus, Roberts may know where some of the bodies are buried re: election 2000, so there is potential for dirt there.

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Roberts donated $1000 to the Bush Recount effort

John G. Roberts, Jr., the Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the DC Circuit, also donated $1000 to Bush -- this really is starting to look like a cover charge -- with $3000 to other Republicans and $3900 to Hogan & Hartson's PAC. The PAC gave $136,000, aside from individual donations, and $30,000 in soft money. Roberts then donated $1000 to the Bush recount effort. Hogan & Hartson clients include Mobil Oil Corporation, 3M, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/01/012902_Checkbooks_and_Balances.html

[oxbow]

18. He's a Bush stooge

if he gave money to the Bush recount fund, and voted with Cheney on the energy task force decision, I'm willing to bet he's a loyal Bushy. These guys are worse than the mafia!

[Capn Sunshine]

16. BINGO! This takes Traitorgate off the front page

This guy is the throwaway make 'em use their resources up distraction candidate.

It's almost as if Rove picked this guy himself.

[oxbow]

20. That's what first came to mind...

...that this has Rove's stink all over it. It's a good move, kind of like a checkmate forcing us to act on another front. With new Abu Ghraib pics, a failing war, social security stagnant and other failures apparent, it seems like the White House has its work cut out for it though.

We should find a way to tie up the issues into one argument, as that would be a lot easier than fighting a four-front war. The theme should be irresponsibility; irreponsible rulings by White House lawyers which made torture possible, irresponsible partisan attacks by Rove that compromised national security, irresponsible use of our military against the better advice of our own intelligence. It's like we have a bunch of children running the country. AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY BY ANYBODY IN THE ADMIN.

[The Jacobin]

10. From the Alliance for Justice

This is from a report they made when he was first nominated to the DC Circuit:

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

Environment

First, as Acting Solicitor General, Roberts was the government’s lead counsel before the Supreme Court in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, a case brought by citizens seeking to enforce environmental protections in response to the government’s decision to
open 4,500 acres of public land to mining activity. Plaintiffs asserted that they would be injured by the government’s decision to open the land to mining, citing recreational activities in which they had engaged and planned to engage in the future in that area.

Despite express statutory authorization for such suits, however, Roberts argued that plaintiffs, members of the National Wildlife Federation, had no right to file the claims, because they had not presented sufficient proof of the impact of the government’s actions on them to give them standing. He asserted that the D.C. Circuit, which had granted standing, had “presum facts that the parties did not -- and perhaps cannot -- allege on their own.” The Supreme Court agreed with Roberts, tightening standing requirements for federal cases in one of a line of cases making it harder for plaintiffs to challenge governmental actions detrimental to the environment.

Choice

In two cases, Roberts took positions hostile to women’s reproductive rights. He was a co-author of the government’s brief in Rust v. Sullivan, the case in which the Supreme Court upheld newly revised Title X regulations that prohibited U.S. family planning
programs receiving federal aid from giving any abortion-related counseling or other services. The provision barred such clinics not only from providing abortions, but also from “counseling clients about abortion” or even “referring them to facilities that provide
abortions.” Roberts’ brief argued that the regulation gagging the government-financed programs was necessary to fulfill Congress’ intent not to fund abortions through these programs, despite the fact that several members of Congress, including sponsors of the amendment dealing with abortion, disavowed this position and that the Department of Health and Human Services’ had not previously interpreted the provision in such a rigid and restrictive manner.

Moreover, Roberts argued, even though the case did not implicate Roe v. Wade, that “<w>e 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.”

In a second abortion-related case, Roberts co-authored the government’s amicus brief in a private suit brought against Operation Rescue by an abortion clinic it had targeted. The brief argued that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of equal protection. Roberts took this position in spite of Operation Rescue’s admission that its goal was to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to shut down the clinic during its protests. Although the government’s brief acknowledged that only women could become pregnant, it argued that conspiring to prevent people from seeking constitutionally-protected abortions did not constitute gender discrimination. It asserted that, at worst, Operation Rescue was discriminating against pregnant people, not women.

The brief in Bray also took the additional step of pointing out that the Supreme Court had not previously decided whether women were protected from private conspiracies to violate their equal protection rights, under the relevant civil rights statute,and urged the
Court not to reach a decision on this question, rather than arguing that the Court should definitively state that women should be afforded protection by the statute, as was within the Court’s power in this case.

The Supreme Court accepted Roberts’ argument in a 5-1-3 decision, with Justices O’Connor, Stevens, and Blackmun dissenting. However, Justice Souter, who concurred in part with the Court’s holding, disdainfully rejected Roberts’ arguments, writing that:

It is also obvious that petitioners' conduct was motivated "at least in part" by the invidious belief that individual women are not capable of deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy, or that they should not be allowed to act on such a decision. Petitioners' blanket refusal to allow any women access to an abortion clinic overrides the individual class member's choice, no matter whether she is the victim of rape or incest, whether the abortion may be necessary to save her life, or even whether she is merely seeking advice or information about her options. Petitioners' conduct is designed to deny every woman the opportunity to exercise a constitutional right that only women possess. Petitioners' conspiracy, which combines massive defiance of the law with violent obstruction of the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens, represents a paradigm of the kind of conduct that the statute was intended to cover.

[pacalo]

11. He's much more a contentious candidate than what I first thought.

[atre]

24. Lujan was fairly consistent with prior rulings on the issue of standing

While I don't doubt that he'll be a corporatist whore, his part in that case is hardly sufficient to indict him as an enemy of the environment.

[rasputin1952]

12. bush wanted someone contentious individual to put before the ...

Senate; he sure found one.

Not sure this guy will make it, but the idea is to get things piled up to get the heat off of Rove.

[KamaAina]

17. It says nothing about Roberts' position on disability rights

O'Connor was the key swing vote in a number of cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, notably Tennessee v. Lane, which grants wheelchair users the right to access courthouses.
One more hard-right neo-Federalist anti-civil rights vote (like Roberts') could have allowed counties to have inaccessible courthouses, and then find defendants with disabilities in contempt for failure to appear!

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

21. This guy is a total disaster. W --- WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mzteris]

23. here's one case

In a case concerning the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), Roberts will represent Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. before the Supreme Court in its appeal of a Sixth Circuit decision.11 At issue in the case is whether a Toyota employee’s carpal tunnel syndrome that limits her ability to perform certain manual tasks qualifies her as "disabled" under the ADA.12 Toyota argues that the 6th Circuit ruling that such dimunition in performance qualifies as "disabled" conflicts with the Supreme Court's 1999 rulings on the ADA.13 In that ruling the Court held that in order to be disabled the plaintiff must show that her manual disability involves a "class" of manual activities affecting the ability to perform tasks at work.14 Toyota argues that "an isolated injury precluding an individual from one particular job" does not meet that threshold.15
http://www.judicialselection.org/nominees/roberts.htm

[KamaAina]

27. Ouch. I remember that one. That's just the sort of thing that worries me.

The courts have consistently chipped away at ADA by (among other things) ruling that plaintiffs aren't covered by it.

Carpal tunnel is hardly "an isolated injury", and she probably got it from working in Toyota's un-ergonomic conditions to begin with. Yuk. Three decades of this.

The irony: ADA's 15th anniversary is a week from today. At this rate she may not live long enough to get her "driver's license". :scared:

[Sparkly]

22. We had to expect something at LEAST this bad.

It's a sad day, no doubt about it --- but we saw it coming back in 2000.

[Joey Liberal]

25. He's a right wing wacko

[mzteris]

37. the best thing

I can say about this guy is -

it could be worse. (SIGH)

[welshTerrier2]

26. extensive write-up on Roberts

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

[mzteris]

39. Thanks - good source

for detailed information on his background.

[magellan]

28. Clever nomination for a few reasons

First, Roberts is currently a DC appellate judge. His move to the SCOTUS would open up a seat on the DC Circuit, which is important as it often rules on matters of national U.S. policy and law. But since Bush** put him there in the first place, he'd just nominate another ideologue for Roberts' seat. The threat is how much worse in degrees of conservative activism the Roberts' replacement would be.

Second, Roberts' hand in the Rust v. Sullivan brief, which argued for overturning RvW, will be framed by the Right as advocating the administration's position -- something he was bound to do as a lawyer within the Attorney General's office at the time -- not his own. I'm not sure many Dems/liberals will care for the distinction or that it will matter to them. But technically it makes filibustering on that point more difficult.

Third -- obviously, as it's already been said, Roberts' nomination is suitably controversial and timed to take the heat off Rovegate. And that's BushCo's real motive here.

[mzteris]

40. controversial enough

to distract from Rove.

Not so much to not get confirmed.

Right "enough" to make the conservatives happy.

Not so right to keep him from getting confirmed.

And you're right - it reopens up the DC Appellate judgeship - to get in a more radicalright judge - without as much vetting.


(SIGH) He could be worse, I suppose.

[demo dutch]

29. He was also part of the Bush camp in the 2000 Florida recount mess

[The Jacobin]

30. Do you have a link for this?

Interesting.

[demo dutch]

34. Not yet, it was mentioned on MSNBC by Abrams during the coverage after

the anouncement tonight. If you remember, Abrams was the NBC legal correspondent that covered that entire fiasco and reported from Tallahassee, FL.

[demo dutch]

43. Got a link, but it was also mentioned by Katrina vd Heuvel (the Nation)

that Roberts advised Jeb Bush (very quietly) during the Florida recount and gave critical advice on how the Florida Legislature could constitutionally name George W. Bush the winner at a time when Republicans feared that if the recount were to continue the courts might force a different choice.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050720/REPOSITORY/507200374/1013/NEWS03

[Nothing Without Hope]

31. Alliance for Justice - a good 14 page background paper on Roberts

He's anti-minority, anti-women, anti-separation of church and state...and on and on. He's an extreme partisan who is just 50 years old and would skew the court for the next 25-30 years.

Here's the writeup:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

[Turn CO Blue]

36. That's the most depressing thing I've read all week!

*sigh*

*sigh*

Yikes! (nothing inciteful to write...)

[leesa]

32. So, typical of a conservative, he is inconsistant. Abortion clinics

receiving federal funds may not talk about abortion, but churches may campaign for GOP candidates and still get their tax breaks.
Same old shit.

[mzteris]

41. and church

activities can be carried on at school - and I bet he would be against allowing GLBT groups access.

He probably also disagrees with any sort of real sex education beyond "just say no" -

[StuckinBFE]

38. So what the hell are we suppose to do?

More then likely this guy will get put on the bench because we have way to many Democratics scared to fight the dumb-asses in charge. Then Rove will escape and not get put in jail and by then no one will remember the "Downing Street Memos" and we will still be fighting in Iraq.

So my question is if we Impeach Bush can we take this guy off of the bench? I am guessing the answer is NO but I can always hope. What a shitty day, I wish our "liberal" media would do their jobs and actually investigate.

[mzteris]

42. At least demand

a complete and full investigation of this guy.......

AND don't let up on the pressure on Rove nor DSM....

Maybe if the heat is turned up enough - while delaying the appointment process - bushco will get impeached prior to putting ANYONE on the bench and the pubs will be so scr@wed by then with the scandal(s) that they won't be able to get ANYONE of *their choice* confirmed.

A girl can always dream, can't she?

[WMliberal]

45. of course someone with only 2 years experience as a judge is ready

to serve for 20+ years in the highest court in the land. :crazy:
like experience in interpreting law is an important criterion :spray: :rofl: