Where's the passion in the opposition to Roberts?

[Mark Tushnet]

"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 
>> 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.
>
> Janet Cooper Alexander
> Frederick I. Richman Professor of Law
> Stanford Law School
> Stanford CA 94301-8610
> 650.723.2892
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050725/cf983387/attachment.htm