Bush picks conservative judge (big surprise!)

Bush picks conservative judge for US Supreme Court
AFP
July 20, 2005
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush nominated conservative judge John Roberts to the US Supreme Court, a move that could shape the outcome of battles over volatile issues like abortion for decades.

Republicans welcomed the choice of a candidate with a reputation as a brilliant lawyer with right wing credentials. But senior Democrats expressed doubts, setting the scene for a Senate battle over Roberts' confirmation.

"The decisions of the Supreme Court affect the life of every American," the president said in a televised address from the White House, with the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge at his side.

"A nominee to that court must be a person of superb credentials and the highest integrity, a person who will faithfully apply the constitution and keep our founding promise of equal justice under law. I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts," said Bush.

Bush shrugged off pressure to pick a woman to replace Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative who was the first woman to serve on the court and often cast the deciding vote in controversial decisions.

The president urged the Senate, where his Republican party has 55 of the 100 seats, to confirm Roberts by the first week of October, when the Supreme Court opens a new session.

"This confirmation can be done in a timely manner," said Bush. "So I have full confidence that the Senate will rise to the occasion and act promptly on this nomination."

But the nomination immediately opened a new partisan divide. "We know Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor, and the White House has sent a clear signal," said John Kerry, the Democratic senator who fought Bush for the presidency last year.

"There are serious questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court."

Other Democrats promised intense scrutiny of Roberts stand on issues such as abortion.

The top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, set the stage for tough questioning by saying the nominee had "suitable legal credentials" but required more scrutiny.

Leading US dailies said Wednesday Bush's nomination should be carefully vetted by the Senate to determine exactly what if any ideological leaning he might have.

"If he is a mainstream conservative ... he should be confirmed. But if on closer inspection he turns out to be an extreme ideologue with an agenda of stripping away important rights, he should not be," said The New York Times.

While The Washington Post considers Roberts "a man of substance and seriousness" whose nomination "is not a provocation to Democrats," it cautions that "nobody really knows what (he) believes, because he has been unusually careful about not discussing his views."

"So sphinx-like has he been," added the Post editorial, "that some conservatives have suggested he might ... not be a real conservative at all."

Comment: Dream on... Bush nominated him.

Roberts "has a thin record on controversial subjects ... (that) gives the other side so little to work with," said the Times, while USA Today said that "while certainly conservative," Roberts' legal record "is largely opaque."

For this reason, the three newspapers agree that Roberts deserves a careful confirmation hearing by the Senate.

Of special concern, said the Post, are Roberts' views on abortion rights and "the balance of power between the federal government and the states."

"If extremists take control of the Supreme Court," warned the Times, "we will end up with an America in which the federal government is powerless to protect against air pollution, unsafe working conditions and child labor."

Comment: Well, golly! By all means, give the federal government whatever powers they want! The last thing America needs is a Supreme Court that dares to disagree with the fuhrer! Extremists will take over the Supreme Court, but not to prevent the Bush Reich from exercising their power... After all, Bush is the one who chose Roberts.

For this reason, said the Post, "such a substantial picture of a nominee will require a serious and dignified confirmation process."

"He should be asked in detail his views of how the Constitution should be interpreted," said USA Today.

The nomination was Bush's first chance to reshape the ideological balance of the court, which has immense influence over the lives of Americans as the final arbiter of the constitution and court of last resort.

Because justices serve for life or until they retire, they regularly decide critical and controversial political and legal issues long after the president who picked them is gone.

Roberts' last notable decision came only last week when his appeals court overturned a lower court decision that the special military tribunals for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo detention camp in Cuba were illegal.

The decision was a victory for the Bush administration in its handling of the "war on terrorism" detainees. But a new appeal is now expected to go to the Supreme Court.

Comment: And here we have our answer as to where Roberts stands. No wonder Bush is pushing for a quick confirmation...

Roberts graduated from Harvard Law School in 1979, was a clerk to arch-conservative US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, served in president Ronald Reagan's White House, and was a senior federal prosecutor under Bush's father, former president George Bush.

"He is regarded by many people as the best supreme court litigator of his generation," said James Lindgren, a professor of law at Northwestern University in Illinois, who added that Roberts conservative creed could lead to a "nasty fight" in the Senate.

O'Connor's retirement opened the first vacancy on the Supreme Court in 11 years. The last justice appointed was the liberal Justice
Stephen Breyer, who was named by president Bill Clinton.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now the sole woman on the nine justice Supreme Court bench.

Comment: First we read this:

Roberts "has a thin record on controversial subjects ... (that) gives the other side so little to work with," said the Times

And then this:

Roberts' last notable decision came only last week when his appeals court overturned a lower court decision that the special military tribunals for suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo detention camp in Cuba were illegal.

The editors at the Times obviously didn't bother to do their homework.
Technorati categories: News, Blog, Politics, Life, Current Affairs, Media,