Judge John Roberts Rising
By Erick Posted in The Courts — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Heading into this week, here is how things appear to be shaping up with the judicial nomination process.
The White House is currently debating the type of nominee it wants. Part of this has to do with the filibuster. If the White House choses the standard white guy approach, it increases the likelihood that the filibuster will be used and increases the likelihood the filibuster will be annihilated. At the same time, the White House has several people on its list and is still trying to pare them down.
Most troubling for conservatives, sources close to the White House tell me that while the President is out of the country the White House will be feeling out conservatives of the breath and depth of ramifications should Alberto Gonzales be nominated.
Judge John Roberts's name has floated towards the top of the list. The President knows Judge Roberts and feels comfortable with him. Also, with several significant cases involving the government headed to the Supreme Court in the next year, one source very close to the White House suggests that Judge Roberts name is being given active consideration. In particular, I've been given the following points:
- Judge Roberts and the President know each other the President is "comfortable" with him.
- The judge sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and is therefore very familiar with a host of government related issues that will soon be heading toward the Supreme Court.
- Importantly for this White House, Judge Roberts is seen as jurist willing to extend the Executive Branch wide flexibility in both its conduct of general official business and the War on Terror.
- The Vice President seems favorable to Judge Roberts given Roberts's propensity to give the Executive Branch some flexibility (Judge Roberts participated in the In re: Cheney decision, which struck a blow to the environmentalists seeking a list of participants in energy task force meetings).
- Judge Roberts is one of the few judges most likely to be very controversial to left wing groups, but be seen as a quality judge by both the public and the seven Democrats who signed the filibuster deal.
Notably, Judge Roberts got out of committee in 2003 on a 16-3 vote, which is very strong. He was confirmed to the Court of Appeals by the Senate on May 8, 2003, after several years of Democrat obstruction, but, once to the floor, made it through without significant Democrat obstruction.
Right now, both lefty activist groups and certain White House staffers are turning their eyes toward John Roberts.
« BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Indiana Voter ID Law — Comments (21) | Our Hero Gloats — Comments (9) »
Judge John Roberts Rising 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It seems that Roberts is to Luttig as Renny is to Scalia --- two guys with the same judicial philosophy but with very different demeanors.
As an Easterner, I've always been more interested in process than putting on a show. LOL. As such, I couldn't care less whether my Justices are "fire-breathers" or calm and low-key as long as they vote the "right" way (pun intended). And if Roberts can get 10 more votes than Luttig because he's just all-around friendlier to the senators who will be grilling him, I'm all for him.
I think Roberts/Garza would be fine.
... that the best conservative Judge in the country -- Judge Kozinski -- isn't on the short list. It's no surprise, of course, to long-time Kozinski fans (yours truly included). Kozinski is probably too libertarian, too independent-minded, and too colorful a personality to be considered a "trustworthy" conservative. But it is a shame that the CW has been that the Supremes come in round or square pegs only, and God forbid that you should choose an octogon or triangle (or a yet more exotic shape).
Roberts is too comfortable inside the beltway for my taste. I would rate him the candidate most ikely to be seen by the media as having "grown"-- become a squish-- five years from now.
on the court? I understand liberal, meaning that the Constitution can change if the court believes a new idea or justice or right is necessary. I understand constructionist, meaning the words are just what they say. I understand originalist, meaning the words mean whatever the writers thought they say. But how is libertarianism a judicial philosophy? I understand how it would guide laws and a legislature, but I am at a loss for a judicial implication?
Take Roe. I know how liberals, constructionists, and originalists would see that case. How would a libertarian justice see it?
Just wondering.
Would a libertarian say no to a federal standard on abortion, or would they so no to government involvement in a very personal issue? Pure libertarians are very strange cats.
but not the Libertarian Party view on many things.
I don't want to see federal laws on abortion but I also don't see it mentioned as a Constitutional right. But I'm pretty constructionist on judicial issues.
The LP nominee in 2004 was pro-life but the party doesn't take a stance on the issue since it splits them.
I kinda presume a libertarian judge would be rather constructionist, but maybe von has a better understand and can enlighten us.
W/r/t Kozinski, "libertarian" is probably the wrong word ('tho I'm not the only one to apply it to him). Consider it stricken from my description; "independent-minded" is a better descriptor.
As to your broader question re: libertarian judicial philosophies, Randy Bartlett is a good place to start ("The Presumption of Liberty").
Not Bartlett. (Not to be hypertechnical, but just in case you're Googling him, or searching for his books on Amazon.)
Barnett is too ivory-tower libertarian, and insufficiently conservative, for my tastes; also, he seemed pretty full of himself when I met him. He blogs with the boyz at The Volokh Conspiracy.
He's one of the few good judges we have here in the 9th Circuit and you want to take him away. I think not. LOL . Did you notice another appelate judge doing the swearing in of the Mexican socialist himself(Villaragosa)? It was our good buddy(NOT) judge Reinhardt.
Roberts is sort of a compromise from Bush's perspective-- Luttig is superior.
Curiously, a week or so ago Kennedy said specifically one of these particular three judges was acceptable to him: McConnell, Roberts, Luttig. It's thus possible Roberts would be confirmed fairly easily while also seen as roughly the equal of Rehnquist in terms of political ideology.
But if Bush knows Rehnquist will retire shortly, he would probably wait and appoint Roberts CJ upon the former's retirement (should he be decided in favor of Roberts).
Garza/Roberts would certainly be an improvement over O'Connor/Rehnquist, though Owen/Luttig would be a lot more fun.