July 19 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush selected John G. Roberts Jr., a Washington federal appeals court judge with a limited public record on social issues, to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, administration officials said. Roberts, 50, would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court's current swing vote on abortion and affirmative action. If confirmed by the Senate, he would be the first new justice since 1994. In choosing Roberts, Bush opted for a nominee who may draw less opposition than more outspoken alternatives would have. Roberts was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote for his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2003. Roberts is one of the country's most experienced Supreme Court practitioners. He argued 39 times at the high court on behalf of the U.S. government and private clients. He is a former Rehnquist law clerk who served as deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush. One issue certain to be scrutinized is a brief he signed, while in the solicitor general's office, that included a footnote calling for the high court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that granted women a right to abortion. As a private litigator, Roberts often served corporate clients, among them Toyota Motor Corp. and the American Gaming Association. Roberts also argued at a lower court for a group of states suing Microsoft Corp. for antitrust violations. Link to article: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ahcpqa.6mpGc&refer=top_world_news
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer Tuesday, July 19, 2005 (07-19) 17:01 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, senior administration officials said. Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation. Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush. Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court. Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion. "The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said. In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." While he doesn't have national name recognition, Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked over the years at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice. In the Reagan administration, Roberts was special assistant to the attorney general and associate counsel to the president. Between 1989 and 1993, he was principal deputy solicitor general,the government's second highest lawyer who argues cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the early 1980s, Roberts was a clerk for Rehnquist before Reagan elevated the retiring jurist to the top chair in 1986. It was Rehnquist who presided over the swearing-in ceremony when Roberts took his seat on the appeals court for the District of Columbia. It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003. Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved. "He has been a judge for only two years and authored about 40 opinions, only three of which have drawn any dissent," said Wendy Long, a lawyer representing the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, adding that his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government. Link to article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/19/national/w165142D55.DTL
The reality is that Bush is going to choose the Chief and an Associate Justice. That means that the Court is going to have 2 more conservative justices to replacet the conservative justices vacating the bench...at least Roberts isn't so far out to the right with the likes of Scalia & Thomas. Bush wants to nominate someone who'll be confirmed by Congress. I think he's a pretty good choice. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court really won't change its makeup too much.
saw it already...thanks like i said, i met the guy and read about his professional career (not his personal life)...call me jaded, but I don't think that review fairly captures his life efforts....quite frankly it sounds like a desperate attempt to discredit an outstanding person. I surely did not agree with every decision the Court made during his long term, but I certianly did have great respect for the guy, as did everyone I've ever met that appeared in front of his court. Peace
outstanding is as outstanding does. did you read that right? DEFENDED SEPERATE BUT EQUAL... how, how on earth is that "outstanding?" Or are you perhaps looking at Theif Justice Renquist's life through more than rose colored glasses? methinks so.
Dersh, dude, I ain't fighting w/you, but I didn't see the same kind of subjective hatefulness in his life that you have been quoting from. I don't know your sources, and I'm not a lawyer or a Supreme Court scholar, but I do know that none of us are purely good or purely evil. The Chief was not the farthest right leaning on the Court and he exercised a very good example of judicial restraint on the court. As far as I'm concerned, less gov. is more. I don't agree with many of his decisions, but just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean you can't respect them. As far as I'm concerned, he did a very good job for a very long time leading a group of brilliant personalities in our nation's highest court. At the end of the day, one of the things that makes our country great is that we've all got to work together to arrive at a concensus. You may not respect that, but I do. Peace
1st: I don't agree with him, and I will never "respect" him for his goose stepping past. fuck him and fuck his racist bigotted history. I'm glad that fucker is dead. peace.