Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SCOTUS developments/discussion

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

... this isn't really compelling evidence for his personal views on Roe; it's evidence for the Reagan administration's views on Roe ...
This is his spin on it. Are we to believe that he now thinks Roe vs. Wade was decided correctly? I wouldn't put it past some Republican commentators to fuss that he is not conservative enough, making it appear that "the base" is disappointed. That is exactly what they want people to think: we've disappointed our "base", we've disappointed the "religious right", so the candidate must be acceptable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is refreshing to see the president nominate a white male for the opening on the Supreme Court.

While many were calling for Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement to be another woman, or an African American or an Hispanic American or a combination of these Bush has not let the political correctness crowd influence his appointment. Bush says he is highly qualified (that is yet to be proven). If he is it is wonderful to see an appoinment based on character and talent rather than race or gender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is his spin on it. Are we to believe that he now thinks Roe vs. Wade was decided correctly? I wouldn't put it past some Republican commentators to fuss that he is not conservative enough, making it appear that "the base" is disappointed.

Given the predilections of the Bush administration, I think *they* think he's pro-life. They have access to evidence that I don't. My point is simply that the remarks in the brief being cited reflect the position of the client, not the position of the lawyer who wrote the brief. That's what lawyers do -- argue on behalf of their clients. That specific piece of evidence is not dispositive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the predilections of the Bush administration, I think *they* think he's pro-life.  They have access to evidence that I don't.  My point is simply that the remarks in the brief being cited reflect the position of the client, not the position of the lawyer who wrote the brief.  That's what lawyers do -- argue on behalf of their clients.  That specific piece of evidence is not dispositive.

Still, his position on abortion rights needs to be scrutinized.

We'll just have to leave it up to the Democrats on the Judiciary committee to probe this issue.

*shrugs*

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Just something I found amusing:

The memo was included in more than 50,000 pages of Reagan-era records released earlier this week, documents that show Roberts was a staunch defender of the conservative policies of the Reagan administration and a surprising critic of then-Chief Justice Warren Burger (search).

Roberts, nominated by President Bush to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), thought little of Burger's idea to add an additional court to the federal judiciary to help relieve the high court's workload.

"While some of the tales of woe emanating from the Court are enough to bring tears to the eyes, it is true that only Supreme Court justices and schoolchildren are expected to and do take the entire summer off," Roberts wrote on April 19, 1983, in a memo to Fielding, his boss at the time.

He went on to say: "The generally accepted notion that the Court can only hear roughly 150 cases a year gives the same sense of reassurance as the adjournment of the court in July, when we know the Constitution is safe for the summer."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166247,00.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5304454/

We have another vacancy in the Court, as Chief Justice Rehnquist has died. Sadly, he, like Justice O'Connor, was part of the dissent in Kelo. Hopefully Bush nominates someone who would overturn this decision. I have insufficient knowledge to assess the rest of his record.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5304454/

We have another vacancy in the Court, as Chief Justice Rehnquist has died.  Sadly, he, like Justice O'Connor, was part of the dissent in Kelo.  Hopefully Bush nominates someone who would overturn this decision.  I have insufficient knowledge to assess the rest of his record.

Ayn Rand mention Rehnquist in Philosophy: Who needs it, chapter Censorship: Local and Express. She criticised him and his counterparts for their ruling against pornography.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We have another vacancy in the Court, as Chief Justice Rehnquist has died.

I suggest that Bush nominate Justice Clarence Thomas to be Chief Justice. There may be better jurists, but I doubt that any of them would have a chance of being confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest that Bush nominate Justice Clarence Thomas to be Chief Justice.  There may be better jurists, but I doubt that any of them would have a chance of being confirmed.

I doubt that Thomas would have a chance to be confirmed. His original hearing were poisonous enough, and the Democrats are much worse now than they were then. I'm expecting Bush to nominate someone from outside the Court directly to the CJ spot. My initial knee-jerk reaction is that it will be either Michael McConnell or Michael Luttig. Then, if either Stevens or Ginsberg leaves the court, Alberto Gonzalez.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Bush tries to hold off announcing Rehnquist's replacement until Roberts is confirmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forbes article on Roberts.

An excerpt

He once wrote a law review article arguing that property owners should receive compensation for government actions that diminish the value of their land or even make that value "insecure," a standard far exceeding the one established in the Court's recent Kelo decision upholding condemnation of land for a New London, Conn. private development anchored by Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ). As a private lawyer, however, he successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency could impose a moratorium on development without compensating landowners.

Roberts has also written in favor of a more aggressive reading of the Constitution's Contract Clause that would prevent government from imposing new obligations on businesses in their dealings with employees. The last time the Supreme Court took such a stand was in the early 1930s, when it struck down elements of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. That ended when Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with new justices to get his way.

If this article and others are accurate, then from my POV, Roberts seems to stand for small government and is not taken in by environmentalist and feminist crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it too much to hope that Priscilla Owen will be nominated to replace O'Connor?

I'm interested why you think she would be a good choice. I briefly read a couple reports surrounding her nomination to the Fifth Circuit and I was unimpressed. I didn't hate her, but I didn't like her. Convince me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fox News article to which I linked above lists the following as potential O'Connor replacements:

AG Alberto Gonzalez;

Judges Edith Clement (5th Cir), Edith Hollan Jones (5th), Emilio Garza (5th), J. Michael Luttig (4th), Samuel A. Alito Jr. (3d), James Harvie Wilkinson III (4th) and Michael McConnell (10th);

Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson;

Lawyer Miguel Estrada (nominee to DC Cir);

Former deputy AG Larry Thompson (now general counsel for Pepsi--WOW).

Many of these folks have entries on Wikipedia. Just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harvie_Wilkinson_III. For anyone else, just change the name and separate each part of the name with an underscore. And tell us anything interesting you find! :)

Man, if Bush is looking for a woman or ethnic minority in this group, he's got plenty to choose from.

[Edited to add a couple remarks.]

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Roberts' nomination hearings are on some of the C-Span TV channels, website, and radio. For those of you like me who are interested in federalism, the roles of Congress and the judiciary, and similar topics, these hearings are very interesting. I highly recommend watching them.

One thing that stood out to me had little to do with Roberts at all. Sen. Schumer's questioning focused on the Commerce Clause, particularly Wickard v. Filburn and its very recent treatment in Raich. Schumer mentioned how important Wickard was and is in terms of Congressional power to regulate. Among laws he said would be gone if the Commerce Clause were tightened were the Endangered Species Act, OSHA, Title VII, and the CSA. This made me sad, because I was reminded how much the Raich Court's refusal to overturn Wickard really really sucked. :lol:

For those who aren't familiar with these cases, here are basic summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a laugh, check out "Bush Nominates First-Trimester Fetus to Supreme Court." Ladies and gents, this is a brilliant Onion article. Vintage I tell ya. IMO, it's right up there with "Congress Passes Americans With No Abilities Act." A couple of my favorites:

"A remarkable prodigy who graduated from Georgetown Law School mere days after his or her neural folds fused . . . "

"Nevertheless, Capitol Hill sources say that his or her nomination comes as a surprise."

"'We couldn't be happier with the president's selection,' said M118-P, the unfertilized ovum spokesglobule for Gametes United For Pre-Life, based in Montgomery, AL. 'The unborn and preconceived alike have long been underrepresented on the bench.'"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush will soon meet with lawmakers to discuss O'Connor's replacement.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169644,00.html

Also, the article describes Roberts' confirmation as "virtually assured." So start practicing everyone: "Chief Justice Roberts."

Why do I feel like I'm talking to myself in here?? :alien:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171050,00.html

She's White House counsel. She's 60. She's not the only nominee without judicial experience: "Bush noted that neither the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist nor did 35 other Supreme Court nominees had judicial experience before being named to the country's highest court."

And apparently Chuck Schumer is optimistic (this isn't in the article--I'm watching him on C-Span). So there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bush nominated his personal attorney for justice. Her chief qualification (besides being a woman) is being nominated to chair the frikkin Texas lottery commision. Can you say "blatant cronyism"?

And now this:

One evening in the 1980s, several years after Harriet Miers dedicated her life to Jesus Christ, she attended a lecture at her Dallas evangelical church with Nathan Hecht, a colleague at her law firm and her on-and-off boyfriend. The speaker was Paul Brand, a surgeon and the author of "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made," a best-selling exploration of God and the human body.When the lecture was over, Miers said words Hecht had never heard from her before. "I'm convinced that life begins at conception," Hecht recalled her saying. According to Hecht, now a Texas Supreme Court justice, Miers has believed ever since that abortion is "taking a life."
Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to post
Share on other sites

Other things being equal, I figure I'd prefer 'born Christian' to 'born again Christian'.

She seems to have a more anti-abortion record than Roberts. He had the excuse that he had acted in an official capacity. She, on the other hand, tried to get the ABA to change its stance. The good news is that both major political sides seem dissatisfied with the choice; but, the bookies (albiet on extremely thin volume) are giving her 75% odds of being nominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...