Unfortunately you're probably 100% correct. If Bush gets another neo-conartist on the court, Roberts will eagerly lead the court's retreat to the 19th century.
Posted by nohelp at September 14, 2005 12:52 PMEven if one agrees with Roberts' stances on the issues (whatever those may be), he can't be a good SCOTUS judge, and even less so a Chief Justice, because he'll have to recuse himself from, I believe the estimate was around, 10-20% of the cases because of some conflict of interest (source is a local professor of law - can't find much more). Stock ownership in large companies that will likely hit the Court come to mind.
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 14, 2005 01:20 PMDuke Revolution -- who's going to make Roberts recuse himself? Scalia doesn't bother with that sort of thing and wouldn't expect Roberts to do any different.
If Thomas or Scalia weren't on the court, we could live with Roberts as an associate. As Chief Justice, it's not going to be a pretty sight. (Wonder how he'll find time for the administrative work when he'll be arguing every case in depth before the others to find the two votes that his faction needs. Roberts is arrogant enough to believe that he's smarter than the others and expects to win with them too.)
Posted by Marie at September 14, 2005 01:33 PMListening to Roberts answering questions, I get the sense that while he's mouthing the 'proper' platitudes, he isn't being especially straight with the American people. I note that when he's challenged, his voice raises in tone, as if he's under stress, and his answers become more contentious. When he's being pitched softballs, or the Republican Senator is answering his own questions, Roberts is very relaxed,and his voice lowers.
My point is, that if he were truly as he presents himself, his tone would remain almost constant no matter who was questioning him.
Posted by pessimist at September 14, 2005 01:46 PMObviously Roberts has convictions, I would guess he's a fairly conservative guy. Just doesn't want to get into the litmus test swamp they are trying to drag him into.
I think we are going to get Rehnquist II. He'll be somewhat moderate, trying to build consensus. His main mark on the court will be to continue Rehnquist's mission of returning the court to the arbiter role the constitution envisioned, as opposed to the activist legislative role it has assumed last century.
I do NOT think he has any deep-secret desire to overturn Roe v Wade. But I also don't think he'll find hidden rights for special groups in the constitution. Think he's going to be moderate.
Posted by Hindu at September 14, 2005 02:06 PMI think the "Game" characterization is right on---Scalia likes to analogize what he does as working on "little puzzles". Very egocentric.
The whole confirmation process is uninformative and a charade. There's really little point in watching it, as nothing of substance can be learned from his answers. They are calculated pablum about constitutional interpretation.
Posted by euzoius at September 14, 2005 02:17 PM"The message from Roberts is that he is so smart that he can make and win a legal case irrespective of his personal opinions or values."
Perhaps it is simply the case that he is able to strike a balance between his personal opinions and the Constitution.
This is often referred to as professionalism.
Posted by Bagley at September 14, 2005 04:24 PMGoing back to Marie's original post, that's truly scary and chilling, to have a Chief Justice to whom it's all one big game.
But in a sense, maybe it's inevitable too? Once
the whole confirmation process has turned into one big game of "Ha ha, you can't catch me!" who else are you going to attract except games players?
In the alternate universe to which I retire every night, Bush will be talked by someone into watching re-runs of West Wing, and decide it'll make a fabulous legacy if he takes a leaf out of Bartlet's book and nominates a liberal justice to replace O'Connor.
Posted by sarabeth guthberg at September 14, 2005 05:24 PMIn the past, people of this stripe used to be called Sophists, as in "sophistry". Going back to Socrates, this was not a complimentary description.
Repeat after me: Crass sophistry of judicial nominations...
Posted by buck turgidson at September 14, 2005 05:27 PMAs uninformative as the hearings have been, I do think he will separate his personal opinion from his rulings. That can be good and bad. I think he worships the law, so much so that it's sort of robotic and not human. I don't think he's a wingnut and I don't think he's an activist. I'm trying to be hopeful. And there have been recent cases where I agreed with the conservatives--eminent domain and medical marijuana and the state's right to have those laws. I am worried about privacy--he says it's there in the constitution, but says that all the current justices would agree with that too, and look how they can come out so differently on things like Lawrence (the sodomy case.)
Posted by CG at September 14, 2005 05:33 PMOne thing just occurred to me about John Roberts. He's the judicial version of Larry Summers. Summers, as may well know, is too smart for his own good--and for everyone else's. His tongue is often ahead of his brain, which is way ahead of his social upbringing (a common thing with nerdy types, even in economics). In Robert's case, it's just the opposite--he takes very good care of his tongue, to make sure that his most revealing comments are only made in private. But his opinions on issues (not legal opinions on legal cases, but the removed, personal opinions) are just like Summers's--unbridled self-promotion with a dictatorial streak that does not tolerate dissent. Since Summers served in both Democrat and Republican administrations, some people--including many bloggers--used to view him as moderate to liberal. Unfortunately, people like that do not fit an easy political measure of that kind. But they are easily susceptible to the temptations of neo-conservatism, which allows them to view themselves as superior to the general population. This is where I find the parallel between Roberts and Summers--it's the superiority complex.
I am a person who does not suffer fools easily. But I have friends of all social classes, I easily get along with people from different educational background (and I have seen as many stupid PHDs as high-school drop-outs). Not so with those two. They view everything and everyone from a position of privilege. Their views are sacred--no one is to violate them. Worse yet, they see themselves as intellectual leaders among supposedly equals. People like that try to surround themselves with sycophants, then hate those same brownnosers because of their obvious incompetence. Allowing someone like that on the Supreme Court, let alone putting him in charge is a great risk. It's not a risk for the Bushies, of course. Not that Roberts would always rule with the conservatives--he may actually hold some independent opinions--but this is the kind of man that molds fascist regimes and offers them judicial backing. With Scalia and Thomas on the court--two of the most intellectually dishonest Justices of the past century (ever since the Supreme Court decided that the Consitution implied that corporations can be treated like people, thereby protecting the robber barons)--it is easy to see far worse SCOTUS decisions than Bush v Gore. They would still need support of two others on the court to make day-to-day legal decisions, but should someone in the Bush-Cheney mold decide to go a step further in his imperial ambitions, he would have these three to rely on right away.
Posted by buck turgidson at September 14, 2005 05:41 PMim a liberal democrat, a lawyer and a former law clerk for the chief judge of the federal district court for the southern district of Florida. The majority of lay people do not understand what a lawyer's responsibility is nor do they understand what a judge does. I think that J. Roberts is trying to educate people to those responsibilities. A lawyer is a zealous advocate for his client, beholden under a code of ethics, to give his client the benefit of whatever law applies to the set of facts presented. A judge applies the settled law and the underlying policy to a certain set of facts. Personality, personal preferences, personal ideologies (religious, political, etc.) should have no place or value or play any part in determining or trying cases. It doesnt always work that way, but Roberts at the very least is saying that he believes in that process. What lawyers and judges do is so lost on the general public that i am glad that Roberts is at least giving lip service to the process, which in most cases I would like to believe is the norm, notwithstanding that the public may believe otherwise.
Posted by at September 14, 2005 07:11 PMWell, if Bush&Co's agenda is to dismantle everything that FDR did and destroy the New Deal, he is well on his way.
Posted by Judith at September 14, 2005 08:15 PMHere's the bottom line. Do any trust any nominee that Bush sends to Capitol Hill?
Posted by Judith at September 14, 2005 08:26 PMWell, if Bush&Co's agenda is to dismantle everything that FDR did and destroy the New Deal, he is well on his way.
judith,
I don't think that he'll get any further, the third rail literally fried his plans and the 30,60,70 day "education" tour in the spring didn't even convince his base. Think how much has happened scince then. It's easy to say now, but Ive always believed, as my posts earlier this year say, that his ineptitude would eventually catch up with him. People are awake now, and if we can find effective voices to promote alternitives in 2006 and 2008 a lot can happen, and I'm cautiously optimistic.
Posted by rlp at September 14, 2005 09:02 PMOn what basis is he qualified?
WHere's the proof that he's "brilliant?"
Because he says so, and the press regurgitates it?
So, since I am his client, why won't he tell me our my Proxy what his views are?
Try going to a job interview and not provide answers to questions, and see if you get hired.
And add in that he came recommended by the guy that was embezzling corporate funds while you're at it.
Yeah, he's reel smart, he can do stuff.
Posted by Duckman GR at September 15, 2005 09:08 AMThe Rude Pundit has the best post I've seen yet on the Roberts nomination. It's not even rude; just hilarious.
Posted by the exile at September 15, 2005 08:34 PMbuck - excellent comments.
To those who think Roberts will be a moderate -- is this something you've divined? He didn't say anything that gave any clue about this.
anonymous liberal democrat lawyer: I think we at TLC are well aware of what role attorneys play. However, finding one so pure as Roberts that he never lets who he is interfere with the role is frankly not human.
Posted by Marie at September 16, 2005 10:53 AM