What is your opinion of John G. Roberts?

[??????????]

I want to hear what his opinion is on the "right" to privacy before I give my final opinion.

[Ben.]

Favourable, I don’t agree with him on anything but that isn’t really the point when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, Robert made clear that he’s there to decide how to apply the rules not make the rules… that is an entirely healthy attitude to take and I hope that he holds to it as Chief Justice, indeed if I had the opportunity that is the area I would probe most, though I’d almost certainly say he should be confirmed.

He’s actions on behalf of clients are just that, actions on behalf of clients bet that Bush/Cheney in 2000 or Gay rights Groups earlier on in his career, indeed as I’ve said Roberts is keen to make the point that in the same way he represented those groups he would represent the united states constitution not attempt to make his own rules drawn from his personal views… judges on both the left and the right could learn from that kind of professionalism.     

And lets not forget he seems like a darn nice guy

[Democratic Hawk]

Favourable - I don't anticipate that Roberts will be a 'reactionary' conservative (ala Thomas). Pretty mainstream (i.e. not a wing nut) from what I can gather

Dave

[MasterJedi]

Favorable and there should be no problem with him getting in.

[??????????]

Favorable and there should be no problem with him getting in.

I predict he'll get 80-85 votes.

[A18]

Change mine to unfavorable. This guy thinks the fed can force a state to waive its sovereign immunity to receive funding!

Even worse than South Dakota v. Dole!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Change mine to unfavorable. This guy thinks the fed can force a state to waive its sovereign immunity to receive funding!

Even worse than South Dakota v. Dole!

You think that the Bush adminstration actually cares about state's rights? State's rights is a position that conservatives are for where it helps conservatives and are against where it doesn't help them.

[Erc]

Rehnquist clone.

Thus, very favorable.

[Giant Saguaro]

So far favorable.

Reminded me a bit of Reagan in how he sizes things up and with some of his anicdotes. My best guess is he's a restrained conservative - I'd be surprised if Bush would appoint a Souter.

[Emsworth]

Change mine to unfavorable. This guy thinks the fed can force a state to waive its sovereign immunity to receive funding!

Yes, I heard that. Also, in response to Sen. Feinstein, he argued in favor of incorporation under the due process clause and the doctrine of substantive due process. That moves him down another notch, I'm afraid.

Edit: He seems to support Gonzales v. Raich as well.

[A18]

There goes federalism. Congress can now do anything it wants again.

[A18]

Rehnquist clone.

Rehnquist supported sovereign immunity and federalism. Hell, even O'Connor supported those things.

This guy apparently isn't even Kennedy.

[Emsworth]

There goes federalism. Congress can now do anything it wants again.

Yes, supporting Raich and attributing little value to Lopez and Morrison does strike me as rather unfortunate. Let's hope that he is just being diplomatic at the Senate hearing, and that in reality he does not actually believe this.

[A18]

We can hope, yes. But for conservatives, there have never been many good surprises on that court. Plenty of bad ones, but not many good ones.

[Giant Saguaro]

Apparently, Roberts rejected the idea of finding precedent in foreign law, and that is very good. That position eases one of my major concerns. I believe this is the baseline of Kennedy's absurd comments that Roberts has too narrow a view of the Constitution.

[A18]

It should be noted that most liberals hate the Constitution, so irritating them doesn't mean much.

[Emsworth]

We can hope, yes. But for conservatives, there have never been many good surprises on that court. Plenty of bad ones, but not many good ones.

Yes, many of the Republican appointees in the past fifty years haven't turned out as expected: Souter, Stevens, Blackmun, Brennan, Harlan, and Warren all stand out.

The nominations of Democratic Presidents, on the other hand, haven't held any major surprises in the past half-century, with the possible exception of Byron White.

Apparently, Roberts rejected the idea of finding precedent in foreign law, and that is very good.

I don't think that any jurist in the mainstream advocates finding precedent in foreign law (with the exception of English common law).

Kennedy's controversial reference to foreign law in Lawrence v. Texas was only to rebut the suggestion in Bowers v. Hardwick that "Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization." Kennedy did not find precedent in foreign law; rather, he referred to foreign law to disprove the allegation that homosexual conduct was deemed illegal "throughout the history of Western civilization."

[Giant Saguaro]

We can hope, yes. But for conservatives, there have never been many good surprises on that court. Plenty of bad ones, but not many good ones.

Yes, many of the Republican appointees in the past fifty years haven't turned out as expected: Souter, Stevens, Blackmun, Brennan, Harlan, and Warren all stand out.

The nominations of Democratic Presidents, on the other hand, haven't held any major surprises in the past half-century, with the possible exception of Byron White.

Apparently, Roberts rejected the idea of finding precedent in foreign law, and that is very good.

I don't think that any jurist in the mainstream advocates finding precedent in foreign law (with the exception of English common law).

Kennedy's controversial reference to foreign law in Lawrence v. Texas was only to rebut the suggestion in Bowers v. Hardwick that "Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization." Kennedy did not find precedent in foreign law; rather, he referred to foreign law to disprove the allegation that homosexual conduct was deemed illegal "throughout the history of Western civilization."

Well, the death penalty case specifically referenced foreign law as precedent, I think, and he has specifically mentioned foreign law elsewhere - basis for a decision or not, it still is a concern.

Ginsburg and Stevens worry me a lot more than Kennedy, actually.

[Emsworth]

Well, the death penalty case specifically referenced foreign law as precedent, I think, and he has specifically mentioned foreign law elsewhere - basis for a decision or not, it still is a concern.

In Roper v. Simmons, I believe that the Supreme Court did not use foreign law as precedent; rather, it merely made the casual observation that the U.S. was the only country in the world that executed juveniles.

Merely referring to foreign law is not, I think, concerning in the least, as long as the actual decision is made on the basis of American law.

[A18]

Actually, it looks like there is reason to be optimistic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts%2C_Jr.

tarting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that — and I don't remember the exact quote — but if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause. I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing, and in many cases, it is just a showing. It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is an important — and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case.

[A18]

Edit: He seems to support Gonzales v. Raich as well.

Where did he indicate that?

[Emsworth]

Edit: He seems to support Gonzales v. Raich as well.

Where did he indicate that?

I don't remember the exact quotation. However, he was discussing commerce clause issues, and appeared to indicate that he thought Gonzales to be reasonable based on precedent (which seems rather silly, given Lopez and Morrison).

[nclib]

Unfavorable, though Bush could have nominated worse people.

[Speed of Sound]

Unfavorable, though Bush could have nominated worse people.

[Cubby]

Very Favorable, I really like the guy, he's so friendly!

As long as he's not as extreme as Scalia and Thomas, I'm satisfied. I realize we lost the election, so a conservative will be chosen no matter how much the Dems complain.
I was pissed off at Joe Biden's rude questioning yesterday.

In my opinion, Bush's nominating Roberts for chief justice instead of those other 2 is one of the only good decisions he's ever made.

If he now nominates Luttig or some other hack extremist to replace O'Connor though, this brief lull of good feelings is off.