Tigermike 3,037 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Judge John G. Roberts John G. Roberts, Jr. was nominated July 19, 2005 by President George W. Bush to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Roberts currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Previously, he was a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Hogan & Hartson LLP, where he headed the firm’s appellate practice. Roberts has argued more nearly 40 cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of both Hogan & Hartson’s clients and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General on behalf of the United States. Mr. Roberts has received the Edmond J. Randolph award for outstanding service to the Department of Justice, and is currently a member of the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. When he was nominated to his current position on the D.C. Circuit, American Bar Association rated him "well-qualified," its highest rating. EXPERIENCE . Present: . Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit . 1989-1993 Principle Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Appointed by President George H.W. Bush . 1993-2003 1986-1989 Hogan & Hartson LLP Specializes in Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation . 1982-1986 Associate Counsel to the President U.S. President Ronald Reagan . 1981-1982 Special Assistant, U.S. Attorney General William French Smith . 1980-1981 Law Clerk, Justice William H. Rehnquist United States Supreme Court . 1979-1980 Law Clerk, The Honorable Henry J. Friendly U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit . EDUCATION . 1979 . Juris Doctorate, Harvard Law School Graduated magna cum laude Managing Editor, Harvard Law Review . 1976 Bachelor of Arts Degree, Harvard College Graduated summa cum laude . Information gathered from various news articles and John G. Roberts’ bio at Hogan & Hartson LLP. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Well, I like the pick. I haven't read everything on his rulings so there are bound to be some cases where I'd probably disagree with him, but what I've read and heard thus far makes me feel that Bush made a very good choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 This is so simple, I doubt the Left would have ever thought of it. Per Judge Roberts, they should confirm him. Offer him only token partisan resistance, and then confirm him in time for October. Maybe have Justice Sandra D come back, but not for too long. The Dems have an opportunity to give the apearance of playing nice. And there will be another Supreme Court spot opening. Judge Roberts is going to win the P.R. slime attack they try to throw at him, so why not just act all nice and save the slings and arrows for the next round? If the Dems play this right, they can really score points by screaming bloody murder later on, instead of crying wolf like they always do, at a drop of the hat. But watch, they won't take this tact. The Dems will try to vilify this good American. It's what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,952 Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 This is so simple, I doubt the Left would have ever thought of it. Per Judge Roberts, they should confirm him. Offer him only token partisan resistance, and then confirm him in time for October. Maybe have Justice Sandra D come back, but not for too long. The Dems have an opportunity to give the apearance of playing nice. And there will be another Supreme Court spot opening. Judge Roberts is going to win the P.R. slime attack they try to throw at him, so why not just act all nice and save the slings and arrows for the next round? If the Dems play this right, they can really score points by screaming bloody murder later on, instead of crying wolf like they always do, at a drop of the hat. But watch, they won't take this tact. The Dems will try to vilify this good American. It's what they do. 169723[/snapback] Villification by the Dems begins: Key Democrat upbeat over high-court choice WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said on Friday he "hates bullies" who prey on the powerless, which pleased a key Democratic senator as the conservative candidate stepped up a Capitol charm offensive. "I liked that answer," Assistant Senate Democratic leader Richard Durbin of Illinois said after a private meeting with President Bush's nominee. Roberts has received generally upbeat receptions in initial visits this week with Democratic and Republican senators who will decide whether to confirm him to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- who was a key swing vote between the court's liberal and conservative wings. Durbin was one of just three Democrats who opposed Roberts in the Judiciary Committee two years ago when he was en route to being confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Durbin complained that Roberts had been evasive at his 2003 confirmation hearing, and said he urged him to be more candid at upcoming hearings, likely to be held in September. "I want to go into this hearing with an open mind," Durbin, told reporters. "I want to give him the chance" to answer questions on a variety of topics. Durbin said they discussed a number of topics during the 40-minute meeting, aimed largely at getting an overall measure of the nominee. "It was a positive measure," Durbin said. He said he asked Roberts about his experiences in life and the law how they reflected on the plight of the poor and their quest for justice. Roberts discussed his free legal work for the poor while a private attorney, Durbin said. "He went on to say that like most of us he hates bullies and he believes that the rule of law gives even the powerless their day in court and their chance." http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story....0&w=RTR&coview= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Right TexasTiger. And what did Maxine Waters say about Judge Roberts? She said confirming him would be a DISASTER. 9/11 was a DISASTER The S.E. Asian Tsunami was a DISASTER. Confirming a brilliant, qualified candidate to the U.S Supreme Court isn't a disaster.....unless you're a LIBERAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,037 Posted July 23, 2005 Author Share Posted July 23, 2005 Here are several replies from the dems and lib organizations. Harry Reid: Roberts Has 'Suitable Legal Credentials'Posted Jul 19, 2005 (The following is a statement issued by Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Tuesday about the nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the Supreme Court.) The President has made his choice. Now the Senate will do its job of deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. The President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts’s record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness. The nominee will have an opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make his case to the American people. I will not pre-judge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts. http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8153 Dems ReplyBy MaryKatharineHam Posted on Tue Jul 19th, 2005 at 09:20:04 PM EST Leahy: "No one is entitled to a free pass to a lifetime appointment." "Sandra Day O'Connor was a model justice...fair and open mind." "Constitution calls us to examine nominations to the Court, not to rubber-stamp it." ME: Uh, I think he just said nothing's off limits Schumer: outstanding credentials, They're going after his experience, not his views. Oh, he must answer a wide range of questions on his views in the coming months. "The burden is on the nominee to prove that he is worthy of the Supreme Court, not on the Senate to prove that he is unworthy." ME: Is he crazy? Durbin: "By picking a more controversial nominee, Bush has guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process." SENATOR DICK DURBIN: "The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process." SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: "I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology." SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: "Without prejudging the nominee, I do believe Judge Roberts' record raises questions about his commitment to the right to privacy, protection of the environment and other important issues." NARAL PRO-CHOCE AMERICA: "We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade." PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY: "John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." http://soapbox.townhall.com/story/2005/7/19/21204/9741 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Right TexasTiger. And what did Maxine Waters say about Judge Roberts? She said confirming him would be a DISASTER....Confirming a brilliant, qualified candidate to the U.S Supreme Court isn't a disaster.....unless you're a LIBERAL. 170080[/snapback] Shucks, Raptor, you know Waters is so far to the left her own party distances itself from her. She represents typical liberals the way Jesse Helms represented typical conservatives. And she ain't even a Senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,952 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Right TexasTiger. And what did Maxine Waters say about Judge Roberts? She said confirming him would be a DISASTER....Confirming a brilliant, qualified candidate to the U.S Supreme Court isn't a disaster.....unless you're a LIBERAL. 170080[/snapback] Shucks, Raptor, you know Waters is so far to the left her own party distances itself from her. She represents typical liberals the way Jesse Helms represented typical conservatives. And she ain't even a Senator. 170096[/snapback] Tancredo or B-1 Bob Dornan might be better examples. Representatives tend to be more extreme because their districts have been made so safe. Helms was repeatedly elected state-wide and actually represented quite a few conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piglet 0 Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Tancredo or B-1 Bob Dornan might be better examples. Representatives tend to be more extreme because their districts have been made so safe. Helms was repeatedly elected state-wide and actually represented quite a few conservatives. 170098[/snapback] I was always amused by the fact that he was Senator for Life, but nobody in North Carolina would admit to having voted for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.