Where's the passion in the opposition to Roberts?
tushnet at law.georgetown.edu
Mon Jul 25 05:25:52 PDT 2005
"Of Supreme Court nominees, he's probably had the most distinguished
career as a practicing lawyer since Thurgood Marshall." !!! How about,
oh, say, Lewis Powell (ABA president, civic activist, etc.).
Janet Alexander wrote:
> Here's my reason.
> Many previous Republican nominees to the Supreme Court and the Courts
> of Appeals and many of the rumored candidates for the O'Connor vacancy
> have been barely qualified or unqualified (this includes the sainted
> O'Connor, who at the time of her appointment was a little-known judge
> on an intermediate state appellate court, as well as Clarence Thomas,
> Janice Rogers Brown, etc.), strident ideologues with little or no
> judicial experience, or extreme activists who itch to overrule
> precedents because they prefer a different substantive result. John
> Roberts is none of these. He is a brilliant lawyer with an
> incomparable understanding of and respect for the Court as an
> institution, and his legal experience is practical, not merely
> theoretical. He's by far the most qualified person who has been
> mentioned as a potential Bush nominee. Of Supreme Court nominees,
> he's probably had the most distinguished career as a practicing lawyer
> since Thurgood Marshall.
> I have no doubt that Roberts will vote in ways that will distress me,
> and that because he is so able he may sway other votes his way.
> Unlike others on this list, I fervently hope that doesn't include
> overruling Roe. But the Republicans won the presidential election,
> not the Democrats, and the president is entitled to appoint
> conservative judges. I have hope that because Roberts is a
> principled, meticulous lawyer he will make principled, meticulous
> judicial decisions. I believe that because of these qualities he may
> be more open to persuasion by good arguments (and less susceptible to
> bad arguments) than most of the less qualified people the President
> might have appointed.
> So I hope Democrats use the confirmation process to articulate a
> vision of principled constitutional construction and the importance of
> existing constitutional rights, and not just to oppose Roberts because
> he worked for corporate clients, or advocated his clients' positions,
> or because he is a conservative. He's not the justice I would have
> chosen, but he's undoubtedly extremely well qualified by intellect,
> experience and temperament. Does any liberal seriously think this
> president, with a solid Republican Senate majority, would appoint
> anyone we could expect more from? We Democrats and liberals should
> save the all-out attacks for unprincipled or unqualified nominees.
> Janet Alexander
> At 05:53 PM 7/24/2005 -0400, Earl Maltz wrote:
>> I didn't know very much about John Roberts except by reputation until
>> he was nominated by the Court. However, even I knew that he was a
>> committed conservative whose commitment to the cause was apparent on
>> the face of his actions and was vouched for by virtually every
>> heavyweight in the movement. Now I find out that he has questioned
>> the constitutionality of, of all things, the Endangered Species Act.
>> Now I, for one, would shed no tears would shed no tears for the
>> demise of that particular statute. My question is, why is Roberts
>> being portrayed as the third coming of John Marshall Harlan by all
>> but the most liberal elements of the Democratic party (plus one
>> insane;y conservative Senator from Kansas). Why is there no
>> widespread passion in the opposition?
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
>> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> Janet Cooper Alexander
> Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
> Stanford Law School
> Stanford CA 94301-8610
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof