Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Supreme Court Nominations -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (173)	7/31/2005 4:47:35 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 292

That will probably be less than ten votes against, with NO cloture vote. They already know they can't win a cloture vote...

To: calgal who wrote (173)	7/31/2005 4:52:54 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 292

The question is will the Roberts confirmation break up the puppet masters like PAW. There are plenty of Roberts around and the MSM won't ever be able to predict one in advance while Bush is calling the shots. So the confirmation problem is solved, leaving only the biggest problem of all: You can't give anyone a lifetime appointment to any judicial position and have any idea who they will be a decade later. The twelve-year term limit for judges is an important idea, and with Bush getting 3 or 4 USSC justices during his 2nd term, the Democrats may finally become receptive to the idea...

To: calgal who wrote (173)	8/7/2005 6:38:22 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 292

Judge Roberts's paper trail The New York Times MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2005 A battle is brewing over whether the Bush administration is wrongly holding back information on Judge John Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee. The short answer is: yes. Senators have broad power to review documents as part of their constitutional advice and consent role. This includes the memos at the heart of the current dispute, which Roberts wrote as a high-ranking government lawyer. For a man who has spent much of his life in public service, Roberts has a remarkably sparse public record. He has been involved in very controversial matters, like advising Governor Jeb Bush during the 2000 Florida recount, and he played a pivotal role in setting legal policy in the Justice Department of President George H.W. Bush. But he has largely operated behind the scenes, and there is little to indicate what he was thinking when he was doing this work. The best indication of what kind of justice Roberts would be may be the memos he wrote when he was a top political appointee in the solicitor general's office, which represents the government before the Supreme Court. The written record could provide important insights into his approach to these subjects. The White House has not produced these memos, and appears to be prepared to claim they are protected by attorney-client privilege. But the privilege does not apply. Attorney-client privilege is not a right of the attorney, but rather of the client - in this case, the entire United States. The current White House has no right to assert a privilege on behalf of the whole country. Even if it did, the attorney-client privilege applies to courts, not to requests from Congress. Other records, including ones from Roberts's time as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, are being released too slowly. The administration is eager to have a quick vote on this nomination, but for that to happen, the Senate needs to be able to review these records very soon. The information the administration has released so far has not only been limited, it has also been inconsistent. So far, the Roberts confirmation process has been proceeding in an atmosphere of unusual good will among various political factions. But the Bush administration should not presume that will continue - or that Roberts will be confirmed - just because things have gone well so far. The Senate should insist on being given all the information it needs to evaluate him before voting on his confirmation. A battle is brewing over whether the Bush administration is wrongly holding back information on Judge John Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee. The short answer is: yes. Senators have broad power to review documents as part of their constitutional advice and consent role. This includes the memos at the heart of the current dispute, which Roberts wrote as a high-ranking government lawyer. For a man who has spent much of his life in public service, Roberts has a remarkably sparse public record. He has been involved in very controversial matters, like advising Governor Jeb Bush during the 2000 Florida recount, and he played a pivotal role in setting legal policy in the Justice Department of President George H.W. Bush. But he has largely operated behind the scenes, and there is little to indicate what he was thinking when he was doing this work. The best indication of what kind of justice Roberts would be may be the memos he wrote when he was a top political appointee in the solicitor general's office, which represents the government before the Supreme Court. The written record could provide important insights into his approach to these subjects. The White House has not produced these memos, and appears to be prepared to claim they are protected by attorney-client privilege. But the privilege does not apply. Attorney-client privilege is not a right of the attorney, but rather of the client - in this case, the entire United States. The current White House has no right to assert a privilege on behalf of the whole country. Even if it did, the attorney-client privilege applies to courts, not to requests from Congress. Other records, including ones from Roberts's time as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, are being released too slowly. The administration is eager to have a quick vote on this nomination, but for that to happen, the Senate needs to be able to review these records very soon. The information the administration has released so far has not only been limited, it has also been inconsistent. So far, the Roberts confirmation process has been proceeding in an atmosphere of unusual good will among various political factions. But the Bush administration should not presume that will continue - or that Roberts will be confirmed - just because things have gone well so far. The Senate should insist on being given all the information it needs to evaluate him before voting on his confirmation. iht.com

To: calgal who wrote (173)	9/10/2005 1:21:05 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 292

I think the Democrats need to take a cue from Justice O'Connor and try to delve into Roberts' belief in the independence of the judiciary. It is a foregone conclusion that the Republican right nominates judges who share their conservative beliefs. The Democrats on the other hand should ensure that does not happen and that the judiciary remains independent. They are very well place to insist that only judges with a strong track record of excellent jurisprudence are appointed to the Supreme court. Roberts does not fit that bill. In fact he has no record. It is turning out to be another case of a appointed similar to Brown's appointment as FEMA director. O'Connor Mum on Rehnquist and Roberts The Associated Press Friday, September 9, 2005; 8:49 PM GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor steered clear of directly discussing the big issues facing the nation's highest court while visiting the University of Florida's law school Friday. O'Connor spoke before a crowd of 500 but did not mention the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the nomination of John Roberts to replace him, or her own delayed retirement plans. What she did address was political influence on the judiciary. "I am against judicial reform driven by nakedly partisan, result-oriented reasons," O'Connor told the group. "The experience of developing countries, former communist countries and our own political culture teaches us that we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong arm the judiciary into adopting their own preferred policies." Without naming names, she faulted politicians from both parties for not understanding judicial independence. "We have the power to make the other branches of government really angry," she said. She spoke at the dedication of a new university law library named for Lawton Chiles, a former Florida governor who died in 1998. O'Connor, 75, announced her retirement in July but promised to remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed. Bush initially nominated federal appellate judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor, but on Monday nominated him to succeed Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Roberts' confirmation hearings are to begin next week. washingtonpost.com