Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts

Any thoughts?

"I don't necessarily think that it's the best approach to have an all-encompassing philosophy." - Judge John G. Roberts at his confirmation hearing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/20/roberts.profile.ap/index.html

Post 1

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 3:24pm

Thoughts? Yes.

He is a totally unprincipled pragmatist.

Political conservatives have misgivings about men of principle. Even if a Justice's principles are for the most part to their liking, a principled one will sometimes follow principles instead of following the Conservative herd (e.g. Clarence Thomas in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.) A pragmatist will follow the herd.

Fascists and Socialists (in America, so-called "Liberals") no longer have any principles. They will recognize a fellow pragmatist and bid him welcome.

There is bad, and there is disastrous. This is the latter.

Post 2

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 3:27pm

Unprincipled pragmatist is a redundancy - a pragmatist IS by definition an unprincipled person...

Post 3

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:07pm

Every talking head, ex-judge, politician, "wise man" and journalist says something like:

"He is one of the best legal minds of his generation."

Now this is based on what. Everybody is talking about "no paper trail." His jobs as Associate White House Counsel, deputy Solicitor General and his private practice were dictated by what the White House or his clients thought, not necessary what he thinks. He's even made comments to that effect.

If your 50 years old and you have never written or spoke about something that offends someone, should you be considered a "best mind."

Post 4

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 5:57pm

Like everyone in politics, he knows the right people, and looks good infront of a camera. "Just keep your mouth shut and don't offend anyone, and you'll go far" is the current advice for American politicians. Sad, very sad.

Still, a pragmatist may be better than a Justice whose 'principles' include legislating the Christian Bible.

Post 5

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 4:11pm

True, but its better then legislating the Communist Manifesto.

I know a lot of ya'll don't like her but Coulter here has a good criticism of him from the right:

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Post 6

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 5:22pm

I would like to see a president nominate a judicial superstar - someone who's been on the bench for awhile whose opinions have been respected and influential, like back when Justice Cardozo was nominated. But Roberts has been on the bench for what, two years? And he has made few influential and respected decisions, not enough to qualify him for the title of judicial superstar.

Jordan

Post 7

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 5:32pm

Reagan tried that with Bork.

Peter

Post 8

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:52am

Peter,

True enough. I suppose I should've qualified my idea that I'd like a president to pick a judicial superstar that Congress would approve. :p

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 7/23, 8:52am)

Post 9

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:41am

Not sure Jeb can run for president at this point...3 out of 4 Bush administrations might seem foul even to conservatives. Wonder if Bush has considered appointing his little bro to the Supreme Court. I know he's not lawyer but that isn't necessarily a requirement...and politicians have served on the court throughout the country's history. Could be an interesting move for the Bush dynasty.

/\
\/

Post 10

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:05pm