Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Bush nominates Roberts for Chief Justice

  1. Sep 5, 2005 #1
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/05/D8CE5A681.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 5, 2005 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well Roberts was initially picked to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and the confirmation hearings were set to begin tomorrow. With Rehnquist's death, the president has moved quickly to nominate Roberts - good moved IMO. Well, at least Bush did this right.

    I have actually heard some good things about Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist a while back. Roberts is very much like Rehnquist and perhaps moderate enough to be acceptable to the Democrats.
  4. Sep 5, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    He's not moderate at all, and he has nada, zip, zero experience as a judge at any level. Why would you assume he's a good choice for the highest judicial post in the land? I think the Dems should dig their heels in and fight this nomination on judicial experience alone; you don't put a Second Looey in charge of the Army.
  5. Sep 5, 2005 #4
    He's not even a private, he's a civilian. Judges are specially trained to do their work, you don't ask an ordinary citizen to operate a nuclear bomb anymore than you do to make impartial decisions in court.
  6. Sep 5, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not a private? What, like in the army?
  7. Sep 6, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I can understand the rationale behind doing this. If Roberts is simply appointed to succeed O'Connor, then the court will open with only eight justices, and there would stand the possibility of an undecided case, a case that ends in a tie. By appointing him to replace Rehnquist, the court remains at nine justices, as O'Connor has promised to remain on until she is replaced. That said, can't Roberts replace Rehnquist without being appointed as Chief Justice? Does anyone know the specifics of how this process works?
  8. Sep 6, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think the Senate Judiciary committee has to approve his nomination and send it to the whole Senate. If they approve by majority (not sure if its 51% or more), then he gets the appointment.

    I prefer to keep an open mind. AP has reported that no Democrat has openly opposed Roberts nomination.

  9. Sep 6, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    While the moderate "O'Connor angered conservatives with her tie-breaking votes" the rest of us are thinking the court has been leaning to the right with Rehnquist and other conservatives on the bench, so a wash with Roberts is already bad enough. The promotion will make Robert's confirmation a little harder, but all hell is likely to break loose when O'Connor is replaced.
  10. Sep 8, 2005 #9
    With President Bush's political appointment of Brown as FEMA director, and now Brown's inadequacy in managing the fed's response to hurricane Katrina - one must use more scrutiny of Bush appointments, now including Roberts.

    For President Bush to insist that Roberts, who has limited experience as a judge, but more in political policy, is prepared to be Chief Justice over the Supreme Court - seems brazen and a bit reckless. His pre-Iraq war decisions could also be construed as reckless.

    I personally, and many other Americans I'm sure would agree, are still trying to comprehend the Republican leadership's aggressive, invasive, and appearingly irrational efforts in the Terri Schiavo matter earlier this year. Perhaps that reactive exuberance would have been better placed in the fed's response to hurricane Katrina.

    Burn me once ..... shame on you! Burn me twice .... shame on me!
  11. Sep 14, 2005 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As for Roberts experience as a judge, it is not as extensive as some; however, "since 2003 he has been a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Roberts previously spent 14 years in private law practice and held positions in Republican administrations in the U.S. Department of Justice and Office of the White House Counsel." He has argued 30 cases before the Supreme Court, so he would seem to know his way around.

    More on his background at - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts,_Jr.
  12. Sep 14, 2005 #11
    If Domocrats, media, and organizations want more information about Judge Roberts - they should direct more of these questions at the Bush White House, i.e. what do you hope to achieve with Roberts as Supreme Court Justice (now Chief Justice).

    Again and again, the White House has demonstrated that it is carrying out a narrowly define pre-determined agenda. In these regards, the White House choose Roberts because they KNOW that his rulings will be an extension of that agenda. What do they know that the public and the Senate committee will never learn?

    Thus, the White House, Bush, and McClellan should be questioned further on its selection of Roberts, and their intentions! Roberts will say whatever he needs to say now in these hearings to be confirmed - and later can rule in opposite to those statements without recourse. The White House is particularly vulnerable now after Katrina, and could be pressured to answer more questions on Roberts. Similarly, they and the Republican party can be held accountable later should the Senate and public be misled on Roberts.
  13. Sep 14, 2005 #12
    Why do I suspect the White House would be no more forthcoming in response to those questions than Roberts? The ultimate problem is that while the majority of Americans do not want abortion to be made illegal, they do want the court to become more conservative. The problem we face in this country is that we are going backwards as a people, to the times of the Puritans.
  14. Sep 14, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I agree. It's hard to find enough on Roberts to know what he'll be like. In light of past Bush decisions, I would want to know for myself if I were a Senator. Bush just hasn't shown much reason to trust his decisions.
  15. Sep 14, 2005 #14
    Roberts doesn't have to answer these Senate questions, and as a lawyer, he's extremely calculating on his answers. On the other hand, the White House that nominated him, is on their back over the Feds poor response on Katrina - and questions about class and race. For Bush to appologize yesturday, is a sign that the public will not stand to be misled any more. So push him and other White House staff for more responses on Roberts. If they fail or refuse to answer, bring up Katrina!
  16. Sep 21, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As Roberts' nomination chugs along, O'Connor's vacancy is discussed:

    Herein lies the problem with this president and his nomination process. The article continues -
    And thus the results--a nation ready to explode. Good job Bushie.

  17. Sep 22, 2005 #16
    Choosing Your Battles

    It seemed pretty clear that Roberts was going to be nominated by the Senate. What remains - is Bush's next move - and selection.

    The prevailing moderate voice in the Senate, made up of moderate Republicans and most Democrats, now have the opportunity to mount their concerns over a possible replacement for Justice O'Connor, whom most would expect would be another conservative - thus transforming the historically moderate Court to a "Conservative" Supreme Court. With the poor response to Hurricane Katrina still biting at the Bush White House, moderates and liberals could, if done intelligently, extract sizable leverage and influence over Bush's next nomineee. Clearly, the Bush White House is exposed ... and is bleeding! Hopefully, reasonable minds will prevail.

    Stephen Dolle
  18. Sep 22, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    IMO Bush should be happy with Roberts, and obtain prior consensus on the nomination to replace O'Connor (as other president's have done). The Dems have a list of conservatives--not moderates--that they've been willing to support. So far Bush is being his usual "my way or the highway" self. If he repeats his tactics, there will be a filibuster. It is going to be one heck of a fight, and I for one will support the Dems 100%. And if so, he is to blame. I saw a bumper sticker today: "No More Bush*t I agree -- I'm sick of his divisiveness.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Bush nominates Roberts for Chief Justice
  1. Bush Bush Bush (Replies: 6)

  2. No commander in chief (Replies: 15)

  3. Commander in Chief (Replies: 15)