Non-controversial? You be the judge

[foraker]

John Roberts

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

 

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003

May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Born 1955, Buffalo, NY

B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University

1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit

1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court

U.S. Department of Justice

1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith

1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General

1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President

Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC

1986-89, Associate

1993-present, Partner

General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

 

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

 

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

 

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

 

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

 

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

 

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

 

Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

 

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

 

 

1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).

2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).

3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).

4 30 U.S.C. §1201.

5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).

7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

[Off_White]

He's not a one-for-one replacement for O'Connor, that's for damn sure, and I'm not SDO's biggest fan. Still, replacing moderation with a hard right slant can scarcely be considered a surprise from this administration.

[assmonkey]

He's not right-enough for Anne Coulter.

 

Straight from the trailer park: http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66

[bunglehead]

Man, I tried reading that Ann Coulter link, and couldn't make it through it. What got me was the "perform an abortion, live"

shit. How ignorant and inflammatory of her.

[Camilo]

I just read the first few paragraphs of Assmonkey's article and thought this was really funny:

The only way a supreme court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.

[olyclimber]

I bet Coulter listens to jay-z all the time.

[cj001f]

He's not right-enough for Anne Coulter.

The rights slamming him so he seems more centrist making it harder for the dems to oppose him. By opposing someone the right considers "centrist" they obviously are "the extreme left"

[graupel]

Hell, nowadays if you insist that someone tells the truth you are considered to be on a smear campaign for the extremist left.

[Off_White]

Anne Coulter needs a vacation. I know of a nice place in Enumclaw that would suit her. The only nominee that would please that haggard twit is Eric Rudolph.

[ChrisT]

Might as well accept the fact that Bush will appoint a conservative judge just as Clinton appointed two liberal judges - that's the "legacy" of the sitting president. Kudos to Renquist for hanging in there...hopefully for the next three years.

 

I like SDO's comments in which she pretty much said Roberts was perfect except "He's not a woman."

[Peter_Puget]

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

 

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

 

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

 

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

 

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

 

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

 

Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

 

 

So Roberts represents clients'/employers' viewpoint - yep that's scary

 

BTW - He was never in the Federalist Society. Great source there F.

[Stonehead]

The dystopia is shaping up rather nicely.

 

Last week, John Roberts wrote Bush a blank check.

[JoshK]

Yes PP, a pro-business, anti-environment, and, well, anti-human being supreme court nominee. You should be proud supporting this winner.

 

 

Idiot.

[foraker]

About as good as you quoting the Cato Institute incessantly, PP.... At the very least, I didn't give it a 'stamp of approval'. I tossed it out there to see what kind of comments it would generate, unlike your MO which is to find some blatantly partisan screed, give it your seal of approval, doubt it not in the least, never question their sources or motivation, and call it gospel .

 

(and if he wasn't in the Federalist Society, that's interesting to know and I'd like to see a source saying so, but that's hardly the most important aspect of was said. mind pointing out the remaining falsehoods, references included, or do you want to just sit on your faux laurels? next time, get your diploma the old fashioned way rather than through the mail)

[JoshK]

PP, is it "patriotic" to support those who deny others their civil rights? I wasn't aware that being a good American meant fighting against ideals that this country was founded on.

[Peter_Puget]

About as good as you quoting the Cato Institute incessantly, PP.... At the very least, I didn't give it a 'stamp of approval'. I tossed it out there to see what kind of comments it would generate, unlike your MO which is to find some blatantly partisan screed, give it your seal of approval, doubt it not in the least, never question their sources or motivation, and call it gospel .

 

(and if he wasn't in the Federalist Society, that's interesting to know and I'd like to see a source saying so, but that's hardly the most important aspect of was said. mind pointing out the remaining falsehoods, references included, or do you want to just sit on your faux laurels? next time, get your diploma the old fashioned way rather than through the mail)

 

I give up. What are they?

Edited July 22, 2005 by Peter_Puget

[cj001f]

BTW - He was never in the Federalist Society. Great source there F.

PP-

Since membership roles are not public care to cite your source? Would that be the White House "He has no recollection of ever being a member,"? He says he didn't pay the fee, but spoke multiple times at their gatherings.

[JoshK]

BTW - He was never in the Federalist Society. Great source there F.

PP-

Since membership roles are not public care to cite your source? Would that be the White House "He has no recollection of ever being a member,"? He says he didn't pay the fee, but spoke multiple times at their gatherings.

 

PP, if you get stuck answering this one, just remember that you can always bring up Bill Clinton. Atta boy, you can do it...

[tomtom]

Knee jerk reactions are bad for the joints.

[mec]

Knee jerk reactions are bad for the joints.

 

but the press eats them up!

[cj001f]

"Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201.html

[mec]

[tomtom]

The questions about Roberts's involvement with the society may come down to the meaning of the word "membership."

 

As opposed to the meaning of the word "is" is.

[foraker]

Or what PP's concept of 'credible news source' is....