What is there to know about John Roberts?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Does anyone have tidbits from any of his writings (other than his Bush41 arguments)?

[The Duke]

Hedgepeth v. Washington Area Metropolitian Transit Authority

Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Roberts rejected Fourth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause challenges to the arrest and detention of a twelve-year old girl for eating french fries on a Metro train. The case received some media attention because of its extreme facts--as Judge Roberts noted in the first line of his opinion, "[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation."

Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton

In his dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Roberts criticized the panel's holding that a regulation governing the treatment of a non-commercial species of wildlife was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. He argued that Lopez and Morrison required the court to adopt a narrower rule for Commerce Clause challenges, but also suggested that there might be other bases on which to sustain the regulation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hedgepeth v. Washington Area Metropolitian Transit Authority

Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Roberts rejected Fourth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause challenges to the arrest and detention of a twelve-year old girl for eating french fries on a Metro train. The case received some media attention because of its extreme facts--as Judge Roberts noted in the first line of his opinion, "[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation."

Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton

In his dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Roberts criticized the panel's holding that a regulation governing the treatment of a non-commercial species of wildlife was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. He argued that Lopez and Morrison required the court to adopt a narrower rule for Commerce Clause challenges, but also suggested that there might be other bases on which to sustain the regulation.

Thanks for the info.  I don't see any problem in either of these opinions.

[J. J.]

I believe this is what he said during his past confirmation hearing.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8634097/


I was looking at his ADA arguments. From what I could see, he was not arguing against the constitutionality, but only the details of the application.

So far, I'm not seeing a great deal that would leave me to question him.  He gives very nuanced arguments that seem to be relating to the details of what he is arguing or deciding.  He seems to look at issues very narrowly and may find other grounds to do the same thing.

[The Duke]

Isn't that abortion line standard fare for Appellate nominees, but not for Supreme Court nominess?

[Peter]

Isn't that abortion line standard fare for Appellate nominees, but not for Supreme Court nominess?

Well, I think a lot of Senators (and not just the Democrats) would have a problem with an Appeallate nominee announcing in his confirmation hearing that he was going to decline to uphold standing precedent, so yes, it is pretty much.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He wasn't on the District court long, so not that much of a record specifically as a judge.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I believe this is what he said during his past confirmation hearing.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8634097/

Do you actually believe that he's not anti-abortion?

[Emsworth]

His decision in Ranch Viejo v. Norton appears to be okay; Hedgepeth v. Washington, although decided in unfortunate circumstances, does not appear to contradict the Constitution.

So far, the only "troubling" decision I could find was Fletcher v. District of Columbia. The case involved a prisoner who appealed against a mid-sentence change in parole rules; Roberts held that the change did not constitute an ex post facto law, but was reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal.

[MODU]

I believe this is what he said during his past confirmation hearing.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8634097/

Do you actually believe that he's not anti-abortion?

Not one bit.  However, that isn't the point.  The point is he was backing up what had already been ruled upon, even if the basis of that ruling wasn't sound.  He's not trying to change the laws or rulings from his position at that time, unlike some other judges we know.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I believe this is what he said during his past confirmation hearing.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8634097/

Do you actually believe that he's not anti-abortion?

Not one bit.  However, that isn't the point.  The point is he was backing up what had already been ruled upon, even if the basis of that ruling wasn't sound.  He's not trying to change the laws or rulings from his position at that time, unlike some other judges we know.

The point is he'll try to change it from the SCOTUS. If Stevens gets replaced with a right-winger, Roe vs. Wade will be struck down.

[MODU]

The point is he'll try to change it from the SCOTUS. If Stevens gets replaced with a right-winger, Roe vs. Wade will be struck down.

*Sigh*  He can't change Roe-v-Wade.  This is a great misconception by those that do not understand the process.  What they can do is issue a ruling that invalidates the prior ruling on Roe-v-Wade, but that is only after someone brings up a case to the Supreme court on that ground. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The point is he'll try to change it from the SCOTUS. If Stevens gets replaced with a right-winger, Roe vs. Wade will be struck down.

*Sigh*  He can't change Roe-v-Wade.  This is a great misconception by those that do not understand the process.  What they can do is issue a ruling that invalidates the prior ruling on Roe-v-Wade, but that is only after someone brings up a case to the Supreme court on that ground. 

If you want to get technical, Roe vs. Wade has already been invalidated. It was replaced with Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a weaker ruling. Don't worry, once there are 5 wingnuts on the court, an anti-abortion case will show up quickly.

[MODU]

Don't worry, once there are 5 wingnuts on the court, an anti-abortion case will show up quickly.

And if it does, it should be judged based off of the Constitution and not political ideology.

[Peter]

I think its a little ridiculous to say that anybody who is going to consider overturning Roe/Casey/Stenberg is a wingnut.

Whilst Brown v. Board and Loving v. VA were accepted in the years after they were decided it was because it came to be widely recognised that they were not only legally correct, but also morally right. The same cannot be said of Roe - we are still having the same moral argument over when the foetus becomes a person some thirty two years later.

There is a very legitimate and well constructed against Roe both in moral/philosophical terms and legal/constitutional terms. That said there are equally legitimate arguments for Roe. Calling an anti-Roe Judge a wingnut is distinctly unfair.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think its a little ridiculous to say that anybody who is going to consider overturning Roe/Casey/Stenberg is a wingnut.

Whilst Brown v. Board and Loving v. VA were accepted in the years after they were decided it was because it came to be widely recognised that they were not only legally correct, but also morally right. The same cannot be said of Roe - we are still having the same moral argument over when the foetus becomes a person some thirty two years later.

There is a very legitimate and well constructed against Roe both in moral/philosophical terms and legal/constitutional terms. That said there are equally legitimate arguments for Roe. Calling an anti-Roe Judge a wingnut is distinctly unfair.

He's crazy on other issues, too.

[migrendel]

The real issue now is what questions should be asked. There will be some who claim that any substantive questions would impair the objectivity of the future justice, as if a man of his erudition is a tabula rasa with no views on anything. Anyone who has sat on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has had to make up his mind on major constitutional issues, as John Roberts doubtless has. Personally, I think that someone who hasn't reached conclusions about issues such as abortion (let's face it, that's what this is all about) at this stage in his career lacks the intellectual discernment to serve on the court.

Of all the decisions reported in the media, none are inherently disqualifying, even though I disagree with most of them. (I am concerned about his recent opinion on military tribunals, but I imagine this will be clarified in committee.) Also, his questioning Roe in a brief cannot be regarded as reason to reject him inasmuch as that was a statement made on behalf of a client, not a declaration of a personal credo. At the present, I see no reason to deny John Roberts confirmation. There are still issues which must be addressed, and hopefully the questioning will be very thorough. If he does not cooperate with this, then he has failed to be forthcoming about the primary consideration in this whole process. What a pity if stubborness denies him a seat on the Supreme Court.

In addition, we recognize decisions such as Brown as a first principle that every potential justice must recognize. If the right of black people to attend the same schools as white people is sacrosanct, why isn't a woman's right to make perhaps the most important decision of her life on the same par? Call it a litmus test, but I think anyone who can't accept such a basic precept of constitutional liberty (though not necessarily some of the specific formulations of the court in Roe and Casey) has no right to sit on the highest court in the land.

[J. J.]

I believe this is what he said during his past confirmation hearing.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8634097/

Do you actually believe that he's not anti-abortion?

I didn't say he was.  I'm suggesting that he gives a lot of weight to precedent.

I'm also suggesting that on a personal level, it isn't a big issue.  He didn't say, "While I personally don't approve of abortion ... ."

I'm sure in the Larry Flynt case, very few of the Justices personally approved of Hustler.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I believe this is what he said during his past confirmation hearing.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8634097/

Do you actually believe that he's not anti-abortion?

I didn't say he was.  I'm suggesting that he gives a lot of weight to precedent.

I'm also suggesting that on a personal level, it isn't a big issue.  He didn't say, "While I personally don't approve of abortion ... ."

I'm sure in the Larry Flynt case, very few of the Justices personally approved of Hustler.

He said “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” That doesn't sound like a lot of weight to precedent.

[Emsworth]

He said “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” That doesn't sound like a lot of weight to precedent.

What he said doesn't matter, as long as he applied the precedent to the case before him.

[J. J.]

He said “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” That doesn't sound like a lot of weight to precedent.

What he said doesn't matter, as long as he applied the precedent to the case before him.

Also, even if you argue the case was "wrongly decided," you can find other grounds to reach the same conclusion.  As I've said, he gives nuanced arguments.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He said “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” That doesn't sound like a lot of weight to precedent.

What he said doesn't matter, as long as he applied the precedent to the case before him.

My point is that the media can stop making him seem pro-choice, when we all know he'll vote to strike down Planned Parenthood vs. Casey as a member of the SCOTUS.