The Difference Between O’Connor and Roberts
The Difference Between O’Connor and Roberts
Judge John Roberts needs to be asked about his position on the amount of deference that should be given to the President in conducting the war on terror.
Just last Friday, Judge Roberts ruled with two of his colleagues on the D.C. Circuit that the Bush administration’s plan to convene military tribunals to try terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay was constitutional. Roberts overruled a lower court’s opinion that the tribunals violated the Geneva Convention. In the opinion, Roberts asserted the position of the Bush administration that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Guantanamo detainees because they belonged to no government entity.
But the opinion, as Columbia law professor Michael Dorf has noted, simply assumes one of the facts that needs to be determined by a court — that is, whether the detainee is in fact an “unlawful combatant.” That’s the role of a judge — to ensure due process. This is a vital question, particularly given that Roberts would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the high court. Here’s their key difference on the issue:
“A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”
VERSUS
Judge John Roberts, joining opinion of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:
“Under the Constitution, the President ‘has a degree of independent authority to act’ in foreign affairs, and for this reason and others, his construction and application of treaty provisions is entitled to ‘great weight.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The “due process model” has given way to the “crime control model”. Herbert Packer.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:54 amLooks to me like Roberts was legislating from the bench..
July 20th, 2005 at 11:09 amScore : Terrorists and their backward, totalitarian views on civil liberties = 1, Magna Carta, western civilization’s greatest leap forward in civil liberties and due process = 0
July 20th, 2005 at 11:11 amWhile little is know about the opinions of Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, John G. Roberts Jr., beyond the fact he believes Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned, slowly a picture is emerging.
Roberts voted to uphold the arrest and detention of that miscreant 12 year old girl who dared to eat french fries on a Washington DC metro train. Now there’s a true law-and-order conservative!
No wonder Tony Perkins of the radical rightwing, antigay, Family Research Council is cheering Bush’s nominee today.
. . .
July 20th, 2005 at 11:16 amI think more informatin is needed but Perkins endorsment scares me.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:21 amYea Roberts is legislating from the bench. The only difference is that activist judges who defer to the neo-con way are called “strict constitutionalists” by the neocons. The judges that want to look at cases objectively are liberal activists.
I don’t agree with hardly any of the positions I’ve seen attribluted to Roberts to date, but I think dumbya was smart here. There really isn’t enough judicial paper to slam the guy. There’s pleanty of lawyering paperwork, but being a lawyer and being a judge involove different presentations and bushco is hoping to slide on this one.
The guy is way more conservative than I would like, but I’m not delusional enough to think bush43 would nominate anyone that isn’t to the right of the John Birch Society. I don’t think we’ll be able to beat him though. I am saddened by that.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:30 amI Was Hoping for JULIA Roberts
While his defenders say he was simply arguing a case for his client and this doesn’t necessarily reflect what he’d do as a justice, remember this: he didn’t have to take a case in which he would argue for overturning Roe v. Wade. It’s that simple.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:41 amAnother amusing aspect of nominating Roberts. Does anyone remember the attacks on John Edwards as being a freind to trial laywers?
the majority of Roberts career has been as a trial laywer.
go figure
July 20th, 2005 at 11:43 amVery good points by all. Anyone know what his position is on ammending the constitution to allow Bushie a third term?
A third term is Bushie’s ultimate goal afterall.
When your mailbox is flooded with petitions from grassroot organizations and members of Congress, be sure to tell them to START IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS IMMEDIATELY.
This is a great opportunity to demand what American’s ultimately desire.
votetoimpeach.org
July 20th, 2005 at 11:48 amConstitutional amendments take years. Remember the ERA, and that never even got off the ground. Bush gets no third term.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:51 amEdwards was a plaintiff’s attorney.
It appears what this administration wants is a Supreme Court justice who will defer to this activist president.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:52 amAs in Edwards represented individuals instead of companies or groups?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:56 amYour not giving Bushie enough credit Gordon,
He sucessfully stole 2 elections and duped America into an illegal war.
What Bushie wants Bushie gets, don’t forget that or you will reap the consenquence.
votetoimpeach.org
July 20th, 2005 at 11:57 am[...] To better understand the O’Connor versus Roberts approach to the President’s waging of the war on terror, here’s a little more background as to how it all got to this point. [...]
July 20th, 2005 at 12:05 pmvotetoimpeach.org
From your keyboard to God’s ears??? Let us pray!
. . .
July 20th, 2005 at 12:23 pmStomp The Faux Federalists! ACS!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_17.php#006140
July 20th, 2005 at 12:39 pmAre you guys scared yet? lol!! Maybe you should have thought of this before you ran such a hateful, slimey campaign against the President last year! NOW, you pay the ultimate price!!!
July 20th, 2005 at 12:57 pmWe’re soooooo scared Dillema. The 25% minority is soooooo scary!
How does it feel to know that your own party has turned on you?
Now you have less freaks to hang out with in your double wide.
Too bad for you.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:08 pmWANTED
Supreme Court Judge
Requirements:Heavy reliance on use the of your vestigial lizard brain. Self starting automaton.
Experience: entry level, we will train.
Salary: The usual + Under the table(bench) + tips
July 20th, 2005 at 1:15 pmWe are scared Ned; scared in the way you would be if dangerous mental patients got ahold of the hospital keys.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:23 pmnortheast dementia – if you have anything useful to say, please do so. We do converse w/ conservatives here.
but if you come in screaming like a troll and only drool on us, you will be called on it.
Nothing in your statement is remotely interesting, true or worthy of conversation. I know you are capable, we’ve seen you do it.
Please think before you type.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:26 pmNo Ned, the ultimate price is paid by the soldiers in Iraq remember? Are you disparaging OUR troops AGAIN.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:30 pmI surely tried to have some “back-and-forth” with NE Dilemma, but to no avail. I believe he just likes to play with the cool kids here. Well, we didn’t want or need you then and we don’t now. It is kind of validating, though, when I see what is written about what repubs think liberals are all about. Most have totally missed the mark on our values. I think the main difference between the neocons and the liberals is that we as liberals think of ourselves as a whole; what happens to one of us happens to all of us. Therefore, we must protect the weakest of us first.
Conversely, repubs seem to think of self first – as long as I am taken care of, I may be able to help others later. Well, with the current state of the planet, there may not be a later. I constantly hear neos saying that they don’t want selflessness, kindness, giving and charity mandated. WHAT?? WHY?? For all of the religious zealots I would think that it would be you who would want to mandate WWJD. That, to me, is the main difference. We vs. Me
Beware republicans, we may not be able to mandate charity, but it certainly come back to bite you on the ass when it is not practiced (and I mean no inference to religion). It always does. So, if you aren’t receiving an education here, you should really spend more time on your “side of the tracks.” We are on a mission here to make the world a better place – FOR EVERYONE IN IT.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pmAre you guys scared yet? lol!! Maybe you should have thought of this before you ran such a hateful, slimey campaign against the President last year! NOW, you pay the ultimate price!!!
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma  July 20, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
Just like his hero. A cheerleader, not a player, and full of hot air.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/1703988.php
July 20th, 2005 at 1:35 pmP & P please – I get assaulted here everyday. You want intelligent debate fine – Do you think you have the votes to filibuster? Do you think the Republicans have the votes to go nuclear?
I say there is at least 59 votes to rule against a filibuster. Lieberman votes with Democrats putting pressure on Byrd and Kent Conrad of ND. Any red state Democrat the votes against Roberts will not win re-election with the exception of Bill Nelson of Florida.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:46 pmYou get assaulted because of what you say and the way you say it to people that have an opinion that obviously differs from your own. You KNOW that when you come over here. I can’t stand to be on the repub websites; to me they are vicious and right now especially, seem to be bottle feeding each other the same “formula.” Yet, you seem to like it here, knowing how we feel about certain issues. Do you want to make us upset? That would seem to give credence to some of us here that see you as here merely for the sport of being antagonistic.
Or, do you want to discuss the differences that divide the two parties (and there should really be more than two in my humble opinion)? I know you speculated about the number of votes going this way or that, but that is just speculation. I much prefer getting to the root of why you are here and what you would like from us?
With respect to the Supreme Court. Of course I feel someone who wants to turn back time should get his head out of his ass. Roe v. Wade stopped thousands of backroom abortions and deaths of teen GIRLS in a day. These are men mandating women’s rights and it makes me angry – very angry.
As far as how a bunch of freakin’ politicians will vote, well, I would never even venture a guess as to who is zooming who. The deals are being made without any of us, so who knows. I know I sound cynical, but from a balanced budget and new college grants – to a endless war and tax cuts for the rich, I am truly disheartened. Africans are still dying at record numbers and women are being treated like pets, a huge piece of Antartica just melted and now the life under (which we didn’t even know about before) it is at risk.
I will be joining the Peace Corp (thank you Kennedy for your charity) next year. This country has turned into a huge corporation friendly only to CEOs. Right now, there is the largest difference between what a CEO makes compared to what a worker makes. I watch the working poor without insurance and scream for socialized medicine only to be called a commie; that is nonsense.
I asked in other posts a question about George H. and George W. Who would you support if the two differed in opinions? I’m still curious.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:18 pmSeriously tnd – this one won’t come to a filibuster. Sure we libs will piss and moan but to no avail.
Now if he had nominatied Pricilla Owens, then we’d have seen a filibuster.
Just so that you all know, I don’t support Roberts, I just think the stealth gambit will work for bushco.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:34 pmP & P – I am a W supporter more than a 41 supporter. 41 compromised conservative principles and lost the White House because of it. There is no beating a real conservative at the polls – sorry.
As for the right feeding from the same formula – this site is not exactly hetero either.
Kindness – Janice Rogers Brown was my favorite. I guess Bush is saving her for Chief. She will be filibustered, Republicans will then move to strip Democrats of that right and she gets confirmed. Elections do matter.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:59 pmBut the filibuster is NOT only used by democrats. In fact, Frist used it often. You can’t possibly believe that conservatives will ALWAYS be in power can you? That is just a ridiculous notion; tantamount to a kid thinking he will never grow up or never get caught stealing. Repubs don’t live in a vaccuum and Americans are fickle. Don’t you think that nuclear option could come back to haunt repubs? Just like an endangered species, once it is gone, it is to never be back.
July 20th, 2005 at 3:13 pm[...] Think Progress – The Difference Between O’Connor and Roberts [...]
July 20th, 2005 at 3:25 pmP & P – the nuclear option will NEVER haunt the GOP because if we are in the minority party and don’t have the WH, the MSM won’t shill for us like they do you. Case in point, in 1993 and 1994, Darth Bader and Breyer were appointed with little to know screaming and we all knew they were liberals. Republicans accept elections unlike some people. As for the filibuster you speak about – all of those judges were brought to a vote and only Ronny White went down regardless of what Frist did.
Liberals have judicial politics down to a science. The only SC nominee to be filibustered was Fortas – and it was bi-partisan and he didn’t have majority support. AND it was over ethics, not ideology. Republicans risk nothing by going nuclear because they don’t have the balls to block 10 judges via filibuster the way Democrats do.
Sucks to be a liberal right now.
July 20th, 2005 at 3:34 pmWhile I am at it, while Republicans can look back to the 90s and feel good about the way they treated Bader and Breyer, Democrats can’t feel that way about Thomas. This gives the GOP an excellent and potent talking point – “we don’t smear their nominees.”
AND the poetic thing about all of this – if Democrats had not blocked Roberts in 1992, they would have a paper trail to attack him on. The ghosts of liberal judicial politics are coming back to haunt you and I love it!
July 20th, 2005 at 3:44 pmNED
Quite the contrary; it never sucks to be liberal. I am extremely proud to be for individuals; even the ones that some find insignificant; even the ones that don’t vote. While they quietly make America strong and healthy, they are getting more and more unhealthy without insurance coverage. That is what sucks to me.
Believe it when I say, like most liberals I hope, it is an HONOR to be who we are. When large corporations crumble, it will be us who will take care of the fallout. People, even huge bonus-earning CEOs that throw out more than some families will ever see, will eventually understand what it means to truly care about your neighbor – especially the one you haven’t met yet. It is easy to help people who will notice, it is truly progressive and proud to help those who never will.
To be liberal is to hear the individuals with the smallest voices which should be heard the loudest for they are the backbone of this country.
I reiterate – it is never an insult to be called liberal. I always smile and say thank you when I hear it. And believe me, I live in the South and I hear all sorts of intended-to-be-insults.
July 20th, 2005 at 3:55 pmP & P – you didn’t address the filibuster issue. Could careless if you are proud to be a liberal. Save it and offer somethign meaningful please.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:04 pmMeaningful to you? Is that why you are here? For something meaningful? Now that I can understand.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pmPP – you can’t justify the left’s scorched earth politics over the Courts so you won’t debate it. Understandable.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:14 pmWatch your ass, DilEnema, the GOP WILL BE the monority sooner than later. The reason the GOP got away with using the fillibuster is because the Dems didn’t have the ignorance and gall that the GOPers have in power-drunkeness.
Like I said, watch your ass.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:21 pmWhatever Skid. You’ve obviously been sleeping for the past 50 years.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:25 pmHow so?
July 20th, 2005 at 4:27 pmCare to explain today?
July 20th, 2005 at 4:27 pmDid the Dems come up with the “nuclear option”, trying to change the rules and minority options?
July 20th, 2005 at 4:30 pmMcCain must have been sleeping away the last fifty years as well, eh DilEnema?
July 20th, 2005 at 4:38 pmThe GOP will never be the minority until we get rid of Diebold and ES&S and have honest elections again.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:41 pmRepublicans never filibustered judges Skid. Wake up – when they had the majority and Clinton was Prez, they denied some judges hearing, but never refused them a floor vote once they had passed committee. It’s a perk of being in the majority party.
Skid – get your facts straight.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:50 pmSkid – this is all about power. Republicans have it – Democrats don’t. If you don’t like, don’t nominate a liar like Kerry next time. Sorry, those the breaks folks!!! Bye, bye Roe! lol!
July 20th, 2005 at 4:54 pmhttp://theyhateamerica.blogspot.com
July 20th, 2005 at 4:59 pmGeez fellow Dems, this NED should make us all proud of our party. GOP – Party of the mean spirited. I relish the fact that this guy spends all of his time here, though, I think that says a lot about us all. We are definately more interesting and talking points get mighty old mighty quick.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:11 pmAre you saying DilEnema, that none of the Repubs have used, or threatened to use, the filibuster?
July 20th, 2005 at 5:18 pmCheck it, Dilenema.
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/nominations/pastfilibusters.html
July 20th, 2005 at 5:20 pmDillema, you want a debate yet you show up here with a box protruding out of your back and all you can say is, “Anybody need wood”?.
It’s been done and yes it was funny the first time but seriously, get your own personality.
Try something like “its hard”. That should get you a few laughs.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:42 pm