Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

A Radical Roberts Court

By Mary Lynn F. Jones, AlterNet. Posted September 12, 2005.


President Bush has nominated a true ideological conservative to the most powerful judicial position in the country. So why are Democrats shying away from a big fight?
Advertisement

With a shortened timetable and a higher position at stake, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee will today begin considering the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to serve as the 17th chief justice of the United States.

Already, Roberts -- who was first tapped to succeed retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then nominated to the court's top job after the death earlier this month of Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- had the opportunity at age 50 to shape the court for decades to come. If confirmed, he would be the youngest chief justice since the legendary John Marshall in 1801.

Although the chief justice's vote counts the same as those of his eight colleagues, he has more than 60 statutory duties, which include running the justices' conferences; deciding who among the justices should draft decisions; setting the initial agenda as to which cases the court should consider; and leading the Judicial Conference, which, among other things, issues ethics guidelines for federal judges.

The chief justice also presides over impeachment trials; chooses members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which allows the government to conduct secret national security surveillance; and serves as the head of the judicial branch of government.

Given the responsibilities of the job -- and President Bush's chance to nominate a second candidate to succeed O'Connor -- choosing about a quarter of the court's members will likely be one of Bush's most important acts as president.

Roberts' confirmation hearings, originally slated to begin last week, were delayed due to Rehnquist's death and congressional response to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Senate Republicans hope the Judiciary Committee hearings -- which will include opening statements today, as well as testimony from Roberts and more than two dozen other witnesses -- will wrap up later this week. That would allow the entire Senate to vote on Roberts' nomination the week of Sept. 26, so he can be seated before the court's new term begins on Oct. 3.

Bush nominated Roberts to succeed Rehnquist just two days after the late justice's death, eager to avoid a long and contentious confirmation fight as his administration battles criticism of its response to the devastating hurricane. In announcing Roberts' nomination, Bush remarked, "The Senate is well along in the process of considering Judge Roberts' qualifications. They know his record and his fidelity to the law. I'm confident that the Senate can complete hearings and confirm him as chief justice within a month."

Democrats, however, have not agreed to a timetable, with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., saying in a statement that Roberts' new nomination makes Senate consideration of him "even more important. ... The Senate must be vigilant in considering this nomination." Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., promised that Democrats will ask "substantial questions" about Roberts.

Last week, Judiciary Committee Democrats repeated their request to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to be able to look at 16 of the Supreme Court cases Roberts handled when he worked for then-Solicitor General Ken Starr in the first Bush administration. The senators noted that similar documents were made available to the committee during Rehnquist's confirmation hearings for the chief justice job in 1986. An earlier request to Gonzales resulted in a letter from an assistant attorney general who refused to discuss the senators' request.

Roberts -- who once clerked for Rehnquist and carried his flag-draped coffin up the Supreme Court steps as one of his pallbearers last week -- was originally Bush's choice for the court's top position before O'Connor stunned Washington in July by announcing her retirement and Rehnquist pledged to continue serving as chief justice despite battling thyroid cancer. So Bush named Roberts to the associate justice position.

Since his initial nomination in July, Roberts was considered likely to win confirmation for the O'Connor seat and is still expected to be confirmed as chief justice. "Democrats are in open disarray in the Senate," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "This is not the type of fight you win by coming late to it."

Last week, Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin, D-Ill., told Roll Call that Bush did not consult at all with Democrats in nominating Roberts in July, while Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said they thought the consultation process worked well.


Digg!

Mary Lynn F. Jones is a Washington-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Are we going to let him do this?
Posted by: EJW on Sep 12, 2005 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there any legal way of stopping this? Any illegal way? I'm afraid our system has failed us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Our system has failed us! Posted by: Olympiada
» Thank You. Posted by: EJW
Politics over Principles
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Sep 12, 2005 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Democrats have been scrambling further right by still supporting their decision to vote for the war in Iraq and still supporting the occupation of Iraq abandoning any leadership role in calling for an end to the occupation. Emperor-in-waiting and Republican-in Democratic-clothing Hillary Clinton has been doing wind sprints to the right even taking a minimal position on pro-choice. Why would anyone expect these spineless wonders to suddenly decide to take a stand on principles and oppose Robert's appointment to Chief Justice. Given the implications of the appoinment, one might have expected some noise from the democratics but apparently they have been rendered mute by their misguided believe that the voters would only vote for a Bush-like clone minus some of the clothes (of the emperor).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If he gets a majority.....
Posted by: Tom Degan on Sep 12, 2005 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch how the laws of this once great country change even further if or when this hideous fool (George W. Bush - but you knew who I was talking about - go on, admit it, you did!) is able to shift the balance of the court to the far right. It will mean the end of the American republic. Sound crazy? Stay tumed. The democrats have got to stand up to these people. Have they lost their nerve? Are they part of the conspiracy? What the hell's the matter with them? Wake up, folks!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If he gets a majority..... Posted by: Tom Degan
Why not fight?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 12, 2005 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats will not fight this neo-conservative appointment because they have lost their sense of purpose. They will not stand up to the neo-conservative corporations. They no longer are the party of labor; of the poor and middle class. In order to win they are trying vainly to become middle of the road, mainstream. This will not work. "Mainstream" is defined by the corporations, not the people. As the Democrats move right, the middle of the road will move still farther right. How can this happen? Because the government no longer represents the people but corporations. Our government will be too progressive for them until we are back to the "good" old days before Roosevelt - - Teddy. Back to the days when a fair days work for a fair days pay was 12 to 14 hours for subsistance wages. Back when kids entered the workforce at ages ten or twelve and high school graduates were rare. Back when the aged, worn out elders were cared for by their younger relatives who could hardly support themselves. The corporations supply both parties with huge sums of money to conduct the sales campaigns that they call political campaigns. It is almost impossible for a party to win without this financial support, hence neither party will buck the corporate will. We will not have a government of the people until the people are the sole source of campaign funds. Please visit:
http://www.lincolninitiative.org
Opinions and ideas solicited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unprincipled democrats
Posted by: snowleopard on Sep 12, 2005 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where are the voices of Senators Biden, Kerry, Lieberman, and the other voices of moderation as well as John Dean - the erstwhile leader of the DNC - hiding out of fear of upsetting the corporate rulers of America - they have all been Swift-Boated - is 2006 too precious and dear for their own self-interests? I thought these leaders represented the people.

We need a blast from the past!!!

Certainly if these Senators are defeated in 2006 for opposing Roberts as well as the successor to O'Connor, they can stand high and proclaim they did what they knew was best for America and the American people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unprincipled democrats Posted by: leemiller38
The Gang of 14.
Posted by: sausage on Sep 12, 2005 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Gang of 14 agreement effectively blunted any Democratic attempt to block unacceptable Supreme Court nominees. By "saving" the filibuster, in the face of Sen. Bill "Cat Killer" Frist's "nulcear option" over earlier Bush appointees to lower Federal Courts, the "Mod Squad" dulled it as a weapon against future ideologue nominees.

Roberts view of expanding presidential power, a legalistic theory that threats Constitutional checks and balances, ConsortiumNews.com, more than any other consideration, his position on Roe v. Wade included, should trigger a Democratic filibuster in response.

But, alas, it will not. We have two parties so tightly beholden to corporate donors that they are only distinguishable by their degree of hatred toward the poor.

As the author Gore Vidal sagely observed:"We're not a democracy."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Gang of 14. Posted by: pepaw
» RE: The Gang of 14. Posted by: ccbite
What is the answer? Winning elections! Duh.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 12, 2005 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Firstly, it might be very productive for the country to return to executive VERSUS legislative branches in this country. Clinton V. Congress led to one of the more productive "eras" in recent memory. The reason? When both sides are in opposition, in general, only good ideas (balanced budgets leading to surplus) get through, while bad ideas (Hillary Healthcare) get the "Hell-No-Nice-Try" stamp. During the (mostly) eight years of back-and-forth, government surpluses grew, real wages were up, unemployment was on par with today's levels, and American corporations were able to strengthen world market dominance.

Secondly, the problem with having a Republican majority in both houses and in the Presidency is that it ends up being an out of control experiment in many ways. Nothing gets filtered, legislation is not subject to meaningful (the "Hell No" variety of) scrutiny.

If Democrats want to take control of the Judicial nomination process, there is an easy way to do so: stop losing Senate seats, and then win a few back. Heck, win a Presidential race in '08--now would THAT ever throw a wrench in the likelihood of "conservative" nominees getting a hearing! Want even more legislative authority? Win a few house seats! Then friends, we'll be talking about a movement! (--arlo guthrie)

Had the Democrats chosen to run credible, electable candidates in '04, would this nomination "controversy" be happening right now? Can any of you seriously tell me what Democrats stand for--today--without using the words George W. Bush? Really. It is a fair question. As a national party, if the Democrats don't like the direction this country is heading, they must pull out the trustiest weapons in the elections armory: a better platform and better candidates.

If they can't do so, then they are a useless party and fully deserve the voter abondonment that they have received.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not so much. Posted by: ABetterFuture
Who is worse, Roberts Or Gonzales
Posted by: Fade on Sep 12, 2005 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think we shouldnt fight Roberts and waste our efforts. I think its obvious Roberts is going in. The democrats need to make concessions and deals to allow Roberts but PREVENT AT ANY COST from allowing Bush to appoint Gonzales. Roberts may be conservative,religious right- But Gonzales is Just bought AND PAID FOR by Bush. He owes everything to Bush and will do anything he is told. Obviously the man's complete inability to understand the importance of the Geneva convention and how it helps American troops is only one small drop in the well of his incompetence and cronyism. We couldnt stop him from becoming the temporary Attorney General, and its still a tossup whether he is as big a nut as Ashcroft. But the fact that underscores Gonzales not being right for the our highest court is his complete loyalty to Bush. He will vote whatever way his masters tell him to

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dems can't even beat moron president....
Posted by: lamar on Sep 12, 2005 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It really is all about winning elections. The problem is that the Democrats don't really know how to win one, or they are unwilling to do what it takes. Somehow, a complete moron beat the Dems twice for the presidency. If you can't beat a complete idiot, then how are you going to beat a Republican with a brain? Roberts has one, and he's in. Let's hope his arteries are clogged.......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lord have mercy
Posted by: Olympiada on Sep 12, 2005 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What times these are! I am in continual shock at the state of the nation. It is like that song by The Fixx "One Thing Leads to Another" only there is no pleasure in any of this!

Gosh, talk about powerless! I pour over this article and feel indignant, and can't spell either. lol.

Bush has too much power. I have said that time and time and time again. This form of government does not work and is corrupt.

All right look folks, my political science teacher was trying to get me to go an Ivy League Women's university so I could get my self an edumucation and really make a difference. Well, it ain't happening right now cause I got a girl to raise and that's just the way it goes. But I will speak up here, and I will stay in touch with N.O.W. and I will talk to my community when given the chance.

I am very angry about this whole state of affairs and I want to holler at Bush. But what good is that going to do. He doesn't even listen to his own wife! See, I told you all she needs to join Al-Anon or threaten to leave him. It would make a difference.

Laura Bush is codependent. I have made up my mind. She needs help. ROTFLMAO.

And if you do not like my sense of humor, too bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Laura Bush as co-dependent Posted by: kww355
Of course, most of the damage is already being done by Congress and the White House
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 12, 2005 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Supreme Court can only interpret the law, not pass or enforce it. And don't forget that Congress and the President can override it anytime. Of course, these days they only make decisions they don't like such as Roe v Wade irrelevant rather than override them totally. I do agree with those who said that the only way we're going to take back the Supreme Court is to first take back Congress and the White House and while at it purge the Democrats of "centrists" who keep playing the kissup-to-the-right games. After all, it's what Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II, Gingrich, Lott, and other hard-core rightwingers did against the genuine GOP moderates since 1968.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are there no decent Republicans?
Posted by: Thxs1138 on Sep 12, 2005 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or is that an oxymoron? While you all make good points the Republicans own your Congress, your Senate and White House - well perhaps the Saudi's actually own all these things but the Republicans are in the majority.

As I see it Roberts is no less in Bush's (Saud's) pocket than other appointee to the judicary but the only way these traitors can be affirmed is with a majority of Republican votes. Right now the only thing that is realistic is confronting decent Republicans and inpsiring a revolt of conscience against the traitors in your midst.

You may wonder why I call them traitors? Duplicity caused 9/11. The murder of 1894 soliders killed in an illegal war based on complete and utter lies - the so-called "facts" were known to be false prior to the illegal invasion. The outing of Plame, DURING WARTIME, destroyed a 20 year CIA covert operation that monitored weapons of mass destruction. The rigging of the Florida election in 2000 & 2004 and Ohio in 2004.

All of these things and more are attacks on your Constitution that in itself is an act of treason especially by the President et al. So if I were Bush I would want to make sure I had friends who see it my way on the Supreme court. If I were Bush I'd need it.

To remove all of the traitors you'll need your Supreme Court to adequately punish them. And prevent future "agent provocateurs" of the real enemies of the US to steal power. Of course the Gang of Goebbellites, you call the media, won't let you.

So while you are trying to raise the conscience of the few remaining true patriots amoungst the Republicans, you might also want to see if you can do the same to your so-called big media journalists. Your founding fathers knew what to do to free themselves from tyranny - DO YOU?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stop Roberts at all costs!
Posted by: humansfirst on Sep 12, 2005 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boxer has come out against Roberts, Feinstein is on the judiciary committee and is under obligation apparently to "reserve judgment." She has a statement on her website regarding her concerns and position.

There should be a filibuster of this man and he should have been disqualified already due to his flat-out lying about being on the steering committee of the Federalist Society and his CLEAR ETHICS BREECH by not recusing himself from Hamden v. Rumsfeld wherein he SAVED BUSH'S BUTT (Bush was a defendant in that case) while being INTERVIEWED FOR THIS POSITION!!!! The time frames are clear and it IS AN ISSUE OF GRAVE CONCERN that he WASN'T ALREADY disqualified.

Ethics issues and he's now up for CHIEF JUSTICE??? To me, it's cut and dried -- he's completely unfit for the job and let's EXPECT A HUGE PUBLIC OUTCRY AND BIGTIME ISSUES COMING OUT THIS WEEK DURING THE HEARINGS!

Go to People for the American Way's website and sign up to be available to make calls -- they've got people monitoring the hearings and they'll call those on-call to call the senators about specific things that go on in the hearings.

GET ACTIVE: pfaw.org -- go now and sign up to help! Do something!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Federalist Society Posted by: ABetterFuture
Fool?
Posted by: CatDad on Sep 12, 2005 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I despise Bush I cringe will people dismiss him as a fool. He is obviously not a brain surgeon...but he is no fool. He is smart in the same way that a ghetto gang leader is smart: cunning, opportunistic, ruthless...and add to that an unlimited sense of entitlement...and there you have the essence of GWB.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you catdad Posted by: Olympiada
wierz
Posted by: mark on Sep 12, 2005 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only one paragraph in this article gave any real evidence of Robert's being a "true ideological conservative".
"When he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit two years ago, Roberts said that Roe v. Wade was "the settled law of the land." But in 1990, representing the first Bush administration, he said the 1973 decision should be overturned. As the high court's chief officer rather than a lower-court judge, Roberts may feel freer to exercise his own judgment on the issue."

This isn't even a very good argument, since the moderate view of Roe v. Wade being the settled law of the land is his most recent interpretation. And as far as I understand it, when he made the statement in 1990 about overturning the decision, he was arguing on behalf of a client, so it was not necessarily his true opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: wierz Posted by: Pearl in Colo
Roe v. Wade – A tragedy for liberals
Posted by: CatDad on Sep 12, 2005 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About the only opposition to Roberts coming from the Dems is based solely upon his opposition to Roe v. Wade…with critical economic ideology issues being abandoned. As a pro-choice, liberal, 42 year-old gay man, I have reached the conclusion that Roe v. Wade has become a tragedy for the Left. My reasoning: prior to the 1973 decision…many states were already well on their way to liberalizing abortion laws. Had this decision never occurred, it is reasonable to expect that there would have been legalization of abortion in a majority of the populous states.

I think that Roe v. Wade led to an epiphany in the Right, which ultimately began with Nixon’s great “silent majority.” Republicans have transformed the underlying dialogue for elections from economic issues to social issues. It was Roe v. Wade that enabled this transformation. Ever since then, we have had to endure 30 + years of GOP politicians who have cut their political teeth on protecting the rights of the “unborn” while sidelining the economic rights of the majority.

A radical proposal: Let’s call the GOP’s bluff…let’s actually allow Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Now let’s see these “pro-life” Republicans actually have to do something…and face the wrath of female voters. This issue has become an albatross for the Left and a bold tool of political empowerment for the Right. I am sick and tired of letting the GOP use this issue to control political debate along the lines of social issues.

The Right has played a major con-job on the “born again” folk with this issue. They’ve created this magical mythology (what they do best) of overturning Roe v. Wade as being an end to abortion…quite the contrary, we’d be right back to early 1973, where the majority of major, populous states were well on their way to legalizing abortion. Yes, the right to legal abortion would be lost in places such as Alabama, Mississippi and Iowa, but the extreme radical right has virtually wiped out legal access to abortion in these places anyway with their terror campaigns against abortion providers and practitioners.

The battle to win back our nation from this reincarnation of the Hoover administration must begin with our disempowering them from defining elections upon “moral/social” issues…and getting back to basic issues of economic justice and equality…issues that the GOP knows will cause them to loose elections.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wimpish Democrats
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Sep 12, 2005 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is that the current gaggle of elected Democrats are nothing more than Republican-lite. They are scared millionaires who are desperate to hold onto their elected offices at all costs. Even if it means selling the American People down the Republican River. They are all spineless cowards that should all be voted out of office next year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Roberts
Posted by: itruelyhate on Sep 17, 2005 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You talk about the radical right Roberts as if there are no left wing radicals. May I remind you the most radical justice is a Buck tooth radical lawyer named Ruth Bader Gingsburgh. I do believe this is the same woman who said that 12 yr. old girls should be able to have consentual sex. I don't know but being the father of a 6 yr. old angel that seem spretty radical to me lefties. You people hate everything about everyone who doesn't fall in to your madness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]