What do you think of John Roberts?

Bush named John Roberts as a nominee to replace the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.

My first glance review is that he is an ideal Bush candidate:

• somewhat controversial to take the Karl Rove scandal off of the front page probably through the end of the controversy.
• Strict consitutionalist - i.e. conservative
• Young and healthy looking - will likely serve at least 20 years on the court
• Likely to be nominated - although he has pretty much a free pass considering the makeup of the senate it is also very unlikely that anything will come up strong enough for Democrats to rally anything more than an "almost everyone in the party" attempt to block the nomination. Initial negative comments about him are weak.

The only thing I don't like really is the timing. Although it has been well known that Bush was likely to name at least one Supreme Court Justice, 17 or so days is not enough time to look at the possible candidates thoroughly. Seems to me like he got a rubber stamp as the man who met the political needs of the day and not a properly vetted best man for the job.

Although I'm a conservative, I'm a California conservative - and I prefer "well thought out" to "party line" politics. From my rare readings of Supreme Court cases, I must say that I prefer a relatively loose interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Strict interpretation is too restrictive, and implies the need for Congress to be very specific and frequent in wording their ammendments - which are two things that have not come to pass in the last 200+ years and additionally would not even be possible without making ammendments to the Constitution. Just look at any State Constitution that sits at well over 200 pages and includes plenty of "some animals are more equal than others" equivalents.

I also think that Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be revisited anytime soon and it should really be a non-issue for a Supreme Court Nominee. I think the important idealistic check points should surround personal freedoms, the rights of law enforcement, the extent of the power of Congress and federal agencies, personal rights vs. corporate rights, censorship, and public interest (i.e. copyright, patent law, imminent domain).

Orrin Hatch is in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he has recently stated that his committee would likely spend 60 days reviewing any Supreme Court candidates - the only person to get more than a week of congressional review in my lifetime is Clarence Thomas and that was after the sexual harrassment scandal.

 

I heard that he was a steady supporter of Bush and of the republican party.

 

Yes, conservatives tend to be

 

He seems like a wonderful man! A real advocate for human rights.

 

I like him. Steller credentials. Good pick.

 

In general he looks good.

What concerns me is taking away womens rights and the enviorment. If he owes Bush and tries to make law instead of interprut it, we could go backwards.

 

if you have people on the right and left complaining, chances are its a pretty good pick LOL.

 

He has always sided with the government and business.

Thank G.O.D. for this though.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3273651

 

We could find something wrong with any candidate.

We can beat the coprorations by not buying products that are not supported domestically and not shopping at wal-mart for crap made in china. Pay the 3 to 5 dollars more for american made. No corpoartion can survive that even with a politician in their pocket.

But people are too damn cheap to see the big picture.

This is not a problem at the govermental level or the corporate level, it's the sheeple that proliferate corporate greed and jobs leaving the domestic market by buying the crap. This is not a new ideology, just a different time.

 

All I see of John Roberts is just an extension of Bush's hand. Nothing more, nothing less.