Roberts Is The New Rehnquist
Roberts Is The New Rehnquist
A common thread runs through the early assessments of John Roberts: Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Roberts “spent time in his formative years with Rehnquist, for whom he clerked in 1980-1981 and with whom he remains in touch.” Individuals “familiar with Roberts” say he appears “to be a conservative consensus-builder in the mold of…Rehnquist,” and while Roberts “hasn’t had time to build a large body of opinions,” the few he has penned “leave little doubt that he is as conservative as…Rehnquist.”
The Washington Post echoes this view. Roberts is “simultaneously skeptical of federal power over the states and supportive of executive-branch power in foreign and military affairs, and his sparse judicial record resembles the conservatism of a man he once worked for at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.”
E.J. Dionne even calls Roberts “a William Rehnquist for the 21st century.”
CNN political analyst Bill Schneider said, “if you’re looking at Roberts and saying what kind of justice do you expect him to be, he might be pretty much like Rehnquist.” [7/19/05]
And Bill Kristol said on Fox that “Picking Roberts is like picking a replacement for Rehnquist.” [7/19/05]
In terms of judicial philosophy, John Roberts is not Justice O’Connor’s replacement. He is quite clearly a preemptive replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist.
This is important to recognize substantively, but also strategically. As it stands today, Roberts seems very likely to be confirmed. Moreover, notwithstanding Roberts’ conservatism, President Bush and conservative activists will almost certainly insist on appointing a far-right nominee when Rehnquist eventually leaves the bench. To improve our chances of appointing a more moderate nominee in Rehnquist’s position, progressives should make clear now that we consider Roberts to be Rehnquist’s replacement. Then, when Rehnquist retires, we can rightfully demand that President Bush appoint a justice in the mold of Justice O’Connor.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nico - dream on. You lost the election, President Bush will appoint a whoever he wants. If he wants a strong turnout, he will appoint Janice Rogers Brown to take over for the Chief.
And there is NOTHING that you can do about it.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:46 pmMy My, trying to bait? Will not swallow. However, Roberts will turn out to be another Souter (he he). BTW, I saw your comments on the Norton thread. Please answer some questions:
July 21st, 2005 at 12:49 pmCan you then tell us why you stand for abstinence only wich basically gives false and mis-leading education?
Can you tell us why you’re basically against birth control that will reduce abortion?
Can you tell us your age when you first got laid? Were you married? Did you wear a condom? Did you “save� yourself for your spouse?
Do you tell your daughter not to have sex but not your son?
Can you tell us why this is a men’s issue anyway?
Can you tell us why you even care?
" Then, when Rehnquist retires, we can rightfully demand that President Bush appoint a justice in the mold of Justice O’Connor."
lol!! I'm sure Bush is itching to please the base that calls him a liar on a daily basis. You people are unglued if you think you have any say in this process.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:50 pm#2 - Can you tell me why your such a hateful idiot?
July 21st, 2005 at 12:51 pmAnyone who would suggest or accept such a ridioculous idea deserves to be told when next time arrives "we're going replace Scalia now, we'll replace O'Connor next time." (And so on.)
Stick to Chutes and Ladders and leave the SCotUS tactics to the pros, thanks.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:57 pmI don't hate anyone. Did I mention hate at all? Answer the questions.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:58 pmLet's be fair about this. As far as I'm concerned, Bush can appoint whomever he wants to, as soon as he is elected President in an honest election, one in which everyone legally eligible is permitted to vote and every legally cast vote is counted. Until then, forget it.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:04 pm#7 - Bush can and will appoint whoever he wants. Your Teresa Heinz talking point is good on the campaign trail, but let's deal in reality here.
The biggest mistake Bush could ever make is try and appease you people over the Courts. You HATE him. You want to impeach him. It's a non-issue - the Court will be packed up with conservatives and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:16 pm#6 - how's this for an answer - I have a right to privacy and refuse to answer your questions.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:17 pmI still motion that we ignore this increasingly shrill and irrelevant troll. It was fun toying him for awhile but that mouse is dead. It is no more, like Monty Python's parrot.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:25 pmA White House that is complicit in jeopardizing national security and does not respect the rule of law is not morally equipped to fill seats on any bench, let alone the SCotUS.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:28 pmYou are a TROLL ne dementia.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:28 pmGiddy - why not answer the question?
Why would President Bush consult a group of people who call him a liar, attack his staff on a daily basis, and generally disdain him over Supreme Court justices?
You can't answer that. Just more delusions from the left who refuse to accept defeat.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:29 pm#11 - well, that's a shame because they will appoint them anyway.
Someone please answer my question - I am dying to know...!!
July 21st, 2005 at 1:30 pmRightfully demand? Haha. Democrats don't haver a choice in this matter. You don't have the right to a 5-4 court. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court must be politically balanced.
Bush will put in whoever he wants despite all your whining. You just don't have a say in the matter.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:31 pmThank you Lyle. They talk about us being delusional!
July 21st, 2005 at 1:33 pmLyle, are you gonna be saying the same thing when he turns out to be Souter, part two?
July 21st, 2005 at 1:44 pmTed - keep dreaming.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:45 pmExcellent Answer #9 Northeast! So do women have a right to privacy, that's how the constitution was interpreted to make abortion safe and legal.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:46 pmThe bottom 5 Governors are all Repugnicans.... LOL!
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_07_17_atrios_archive.html#112196670535331303
Hurry up 2006 and 8!
July 21st, 2005 at 1:47 pmThe constitution says NOTHING about abortion.
That being said, while I truly enjoy all the panting and fainting on the left, Roe will not be overturned anytime soon. I have my doubt about Roberts on the issue, but unlike liberals, I don't think it should be a litmus test. I do think partial birth bans and parental notification will be back on the table with Roberts.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:49 pmGiddy - I see you can't answer the question - that's fine.
July 21st, 2005 at 1:50 pmNotheast- You're absoultly correct The constitution says NOTHING about abortion. It came out thru privacy as did consentual sodomy. But, let's talk parental notification - what do we do with the girl who's carring her father or brother's baby? Or, the father that will kick it out of his daughter? If we have parental notification, can the paernts of the boy be notified too?
July 21st, 2005 at 2:01 pmTed,
This has nothing to do with the guy turning out to be another Souter. I don't care if he does or doesn't. He's the kind of person you won't on the Courth regardless of how he rules.
What this thread is about is the idiotic belief that Democrats have a say in who Bush chooses next time. They don't. They have no rights in this matter. The Constitution does not provide for a right to the minority political party. The President nominates and the Senate adviese and consents. Democrats don't have a majority though and so Bush can put in whomever he wants be they David Duke or Jesse Jackson.
The Court must not be a 5-4 court. It could be a 9-0 court or a 8-1 court, or a 7-2 court, or a 6-3 court, or a 5-4 court. It's been all of these in the past and it can be that way in the future.
Bottomline is, if you're out of power, be you Republican or Democrat, you have no say. When Democrats are in power, Democrats can put Ginsberg and Brennan think-a-likes in.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:02 pmNo - the Court invented a right to consensual sodomy and abortion.
Let's talk parental consent - you are talking about the exception, not really the rule. NJ took this up a few years ago and they crafted a law that took the circumstances you speak of into consideration. Personally, abortion is not something I would ever want for my daughter and at 16, it is not decision she should make on her own.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:06 pmAnd Lyle - they will!
July 21st, 2005 at 2:09 pmPlease read Roe V Wade, and the TEXAS case. It's about PRIVACY not abortion or sodomy. I agree - I too would NOT want my daughter to have an abortion without my knowlege. So, I would put her on the pill ASAP instead of kidding myself that she wouldn't have sex! Now, should we notify the boy's parents?
July 21st, 2005 at 2:14 pmIt's hard for me to be against the consequences of Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas. I think abortion should be legal and that homosexuals should not be prosecuted for being homoosexual.
However, the Supreme Court changes the definition of right to privacy as time goes on. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it is a bad thing. What would be better though is the state of Texas doing away with the stupid law itself rather than Supreme Court judges telling Texas it must.
What a lot of people don't understand is, is that in Scalia's and Thomas' dissents they leave open the possibility that homosexuality shouldn't be criminalized. How? If they states decide not to prosecute sodomy when the majority of the people think it shouldn't be prosecuted.
I vacillate between the two views, because one view is more logical and based on the law, while the other view leads to justice.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:15 pm#27 - notify the boy's parents!!! Please!!! I don't have kids, but would teach them responsibility like I was taught. Bottom line.
We will have to disagree on exactly what the right to privacy entails, but it's certainly a contentious debate.
Did I just have a civilized debate with someone on this site?
July 21st, 2005 at 2:17 pmLyle - we think alike (no offense). I am not idealogue on these issues, I just don't think nine people in the northeast should be deciding all of this for the country. Our forefathers would cringe at the confrirmation process. The very fact that people associate abortion with the Supreme Court means it's a bad, unsettled law.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:21 pmResponse to Lyle,
one of the reasons for checks and balances was to prevent the majority from steam rolling the rights of the minority.. that is something our founding fathers believed in. Please stop with the you don't have any control argument.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:23 pm#31 - The system of checks and balances for judicial selections is the President nominates, the senate votes. That's the way it's always unless, of course, a conservative is President. You don't have any control - you can call your senator and tell them to vote against.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:25 pmNotheast I certainly hope so. No argument should turn to name calling - I'm either a fiscally consevative Dem or a socially liberal Repug. Actually, Gulliani is ideal - social liberal fiscal conservative. Roy Moore and Mike Moore belong in the same boat that drops off the edge. And, BTW, I can't stand giving my tax dollars to ridiculous things like:
July 21st, 2005 at 2:26 pm- Israel,Egypt, and the countless other countries that call us "friends" when actually looking for a handout!
- The War on Drugs - one war we'll never win.
- Farm Subsidies on one hand and tobacco tax on the other
- Halliburton - enough said!
I am conservative all the way. But, I like Rudy - I hope he runs in 2008. I don't like McCain.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:28 pmkarzny,
you actually don't have a say. the minority do not have any rights when it comes to a president nominating a judge. minority rights are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and it says nothing about having a balanced court with a certain number of partisan judges.
your argument has no constitutional authority.
July 21st, 2005 at 2:39 pm#7 - We will be happy to recount ALL the 2000 votes (again (!) ad nauseum) not JUST the pro-Dem counties Gore wanted counted. Unfortuntely for your side, we won't be allowing all the pro-Dem felon votes. There really wouldn't have been a problem in Florida if the "hyper-intelligensia" had not designed such a crappy ballot. Then again, it helps to have voters who can read AND understand the simple rules of correctly submitting a ballot. So I guess you really don't have a say in President Bush's nomination.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:15 pmNeD,
I beg to differ with you about DUHbya's ability to appoint anyone he wants to replace Rehnquist. If will be exceedingly difficult for him to appoint anyone for anything from his cell in Leavenworth except maybe Rove and Cheney to make up his bunk.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:16 pmGiven what happened in washington state with the governers race, and the "felon vote" card. I would be careful, as it turned out most of the felons voted for the republican candidate.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:19 pmI believe the minority has a right Lyle, why else would the filibuster have been established?
July 21st, 2005 at 3:20 pm#39 - there is a process. You are correct. If Democrats choose to filibuster, Republicans can strip them of that right. It would be awful for the country and the senate, but so would allowing a filibuster on the basis of ideology doom a Supreme Court nominee. Liberals need to accept that any openings that occur from now until at least 2007 will be replaced by a conservative.
#37 - unfortunate for you, Bush will do the appointing. You can do the crying.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:24 pmIgnore the trolls. Things are now at the point that it's just no fun bashing them. We have bigger targets to fry.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:24 pmRoberts even clerked for Rehnquist.
He's a Rehnquist clone and serves the neocons agenda perfectly.
. . .
July 21st, 2005 at 3:26 pmI have no problem with a conservative lyle, however I have problems with one who would limit freedom.I feel that a conservative can be found who would be acceptable to all parties not just the (un)christian right.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:27 pmRepublicans would be foolish to destroy the filibuster. eventually the pendulum will swing the other way, and destroying the best weapon of the minority would be foolish.
July 21st, 2005 at 3:48 pmKarl Rove's Justice
http://www.swingstateproject.com/2005/07/gop_talking_poi.php
July 21st, 2005 at 3:48 pmKrazny,
July 21st, 2005 at 3:56 pmI agree with you - I too have no problems with conservative values - smaller government and less interference in people's lives. The problem is the Christain right and the Mike Moore left. One of these days, the Christie Whitman's and Rudy Gulliani's are going to wake up and find the cross bearers at thier doorstep because thier not the "right kind" of repugs. On the other hand, the Centrist dems will wake up too and find the Jesse Jackson's and Sistah Soldier's there too. That's when we'll get a true mainstram party - You know, the big tenst evryone clams to have but really doesn't.
Kranzy - Republicans have nothing to lose by ending judicial filibusters. If, god forbid, Hillary becomes President and the Democrats take back the senate in 2008, Republicans would not dare filibuster a judge. If Republicans kept the senate, they might block judges in committee, but that is the majority's right.
#46 - you have a very narrow view of the mainstream. Christie is far left and has trashed the Christian right on more than one occassion. Rudy, while socially liberal, respects Christian conservatives. I get the feeling alot of people in this blog do not and that is problematic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with promoting traditional values.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:02 pmthe christian right is hardly mainstream. there idealogy of establishing a christian thoecracy does not ring well with the majority of this country.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:14 pmNortheast - Tradional values are one thing, shoving them down my throat thru legislation is another. Anyone can sit on Broadway and tell me of how I need to be saved (and, you know they do this) this is not illegal. Codifying values is impossible no matter how hard they try. Consider adultry why do we NEVER hear a word about that from the CH Right - that's codified but ignored/not enforced. Because it's become acceptable behavior - I DIDN"T SAY CORRECT (before you go nuts) I said acceptable. The issue is, we've become a nation of Christians, botique christians, jews, agnostics, etc. And you are correct when you say some push the envelope too far. But, the Christian right, and I mean Dobson and co (even worse is Rev. Kennedy)want only THEIR type of Christianity with no wiggle room. That scares me.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:18 pm#49 - point taken. But, I do not consider those who oppose gay marriage, abortion and want a more public role of religion as extremists. If you believe polls, Americans support Roe, but they also support restrictions on abortion (which Christie Whitman does not), they are against gay marriage and they support public displays of the 10 commandments by large margins. So I don't see how pushing these values is extreme.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:24 pmKrazny,
July 21st, 2005 at 4:27 pmHe said I have a narrow view of the mainstream which is probably true because I live in NYC. I have no clue, nor do I want one, of what goes on in say Gary, Indiana. I don know that when I spent some time in Joplin, Mo, the local preacher came to our door and asked why we weren't at church on Sunday. Imagine my expression! So to me, the mainstream is what happens in my immediate area - and LA, SF, CHI, MIAMI which I'm sure are somewhat more cosmopolitan than Gary.
,em>Krazny,
I agree with you - I too have no problems with conservative values - smaller government and less interference in people’s lives. The problem is the Christain right and the Mike Moore left. One of these days, the Christie Whitman’s and Rudy Gulliani’s are going to wake up and find the cross bearers at thier doorstep because thier not the “right kind� of repugs. On the other hand, the Centrist dems will wake up too and find the Jesse Jackson’s and Sistah Soldier’s there too. That’s when we’ll get a true mainstram party - You know, the big tenst evryone clams to have but really doesn’t.
Comment by LwordLover  July 21, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
Please tell me what, in your view, is the "Mike Moore left"?
July 21st, 2005 at 4:30 pm,em>Krazny,
I agree with you - I too have no problems with conservative values - smaller government and less interference in people’s lives. The problem is the Christain right and the Mike Moore left. One of these days, the Christie Whitman’s and Rudy Gulliani’s are going to wake up and find the cross bearers at thier doorstep because thier not the “right kind� of repugs. On the other hand, the Centrist dems will wake up too and find the Jesse Jackson’s and Sistah Soldier’s there too. That’s when we’ll get a true mainstram party - You know, the big tenst evryone clams to have but really doesn’t.
Comment by LwordLover  July 21, 2005 @ 3:56 pm
Please tell me what, in your view, is the “Mike Moore left�?
July 21st, 2005 at 4:30 pmAh screw it. What is the "Mike Moore Left"?
July 21st, 2005 at 4:31 pmNortheast,
July 21st, 2005 at 4:34 pmNew Jersey, your home state just leaglized gay unions, yes? Has anyone dropped dead becuse of this? Have people's lives changed? Has anyone conducted themselves any differently than before? No. Please don't tell me that just because there's no gay marriage gays will cease to have relationships. Sure, you can push the values all you want again - codifying them takes away personal freedom and then, we need larger government to watch all these gay marriages, etc.
#51 - believe it or not, I live in NYC, as well. I grew up outside the city so I understand that NYC is not exactly representative of the country. That being said, that's why I favor a state's rights approach to the Court for those all important hot button issues.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:35 pm#55 - states rights. Let NJ have gay marriage if they want it. I don't believe it's a civil rights issue where the Court needs to say anything about it either way.
How dare you say I live in NJ!!! =)
July 21st, 2005 at 4:36 pmLword: The "Mike Moore left" of its day fought to abolish slavery, and later segregation, while the "sensible moderates" sat and dithered. A "big tent" that only includes the center isn't very big at all. The Christian Taliban are not dangerous because their ideas and values lie outside the mainstream; they are dangerous because they are ignorant and bigoted.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:41 pmYou only get less intrusive govt. You think you are going to get smaller govt.? Get a smaller country. Cleaning up corruption and waste in govt. is the approach. Smaller Govt. is a corporate speak for less corporate regs. You don't want that. Your heart is in the right place, and I am for minimal regs, but you haven't been off the Kool aid long enough. And I think you should know there is no Mike Moore left. It's a straw man. A boogie man, even. It's also a smear. They knew Moore was dangerous to their plans. They smeared him just like they smeared Wilson. I don't agree with Moore on everything. You have more in common with him and his positions than you realize.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:41 pmGood point, Gary, TY.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:42 pm#58 - that was the invective I was talking about.
AND it was a Republican who ended slavery.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:42 pm#59 - Michael Moore smeared the President. I actually watched Fahrenheit last night. It was hysterical.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:43 pmRepublicans were very different during the Lincoln days.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:44 pmYou can't smear a shit stain.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:45 pmP & P - Republicans are much different than people here portray them. Some of things we get accused of our just nonsense.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:51 pmLiberals are much different then conservatives think as well.
July 21st, 2005 at 5:00 pmKarzny,
conservatives aren't the only people who want to limit freedoms. liberals like limiting freedom. but not all conservatives and liberals want to limit freedom.
a judge doesn't limit a person's freedom, legislatures do. judges just apply the law or that is what they supposed to.
even if the Supreme Court had ruled the other way in Lawrence, Texas wasn't going to be throwing homosexuals in jail. and then eventually the people of Texas would have overturned their byzantine legislation.
July 21st, 2005 at 5:12 pm#66 - to a certain extent, yes. I guess saying you all hate America is a little counterproductive.
July 21st, 2005 at 5:19 pmThe mike moore left gave us high school child care centers for pregnant teens, throws money at problems and thinks more programs are a better solution. Please don't kid yourself to think freeing of slaves had anything to do with morality - it was done to keep the union together. My biggest problem with the dems and repugs is neither has any fiscal restraint. And yes there are the tax and spend dems and the don't tax and spend anyway repugs. Either way I lose. But I lose less personal freedom with the dems.
July 21st, 2005 at 5:27 pmComment by LWordLover â€â€
We are glad you are here because it's pretty clear your heart is in the right place but you still have your head full of some residual right wing nonsense and straw men.
July 21st, 2005 at 6:34 pmPlease don’t kid yourself to think freeing of slaves had anything to do with morality - it was done to keep the union together.
One more thing. You are confusing Lincoln's decision to stop the secession by force of arms with the abolitionist movement. The two are not one and the same at all. The abolitionists used violence as well, just to stop slavery. And they went through some pretty tortured logic and justifications to rationalize it's use.
July 21st, 2005 at 6:40 pm#47...Republicans would not dare filibuster a judge.
You have got to be kidding me, right DilEnema?
July 21st, 2005 at 9:30 pmhttp://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/nominations/pastfilibusters.html
While you're all bloviating about Roe v Wade which WILL NOT BE OVERRULED -- too good a money issue for the right -- this judge has authorized the Chimperor's imperial right to imprison ANYONE HE WANTS FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
Enjoy life in a concentration camp, sheeple.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm
Welcome to the New World Order.
July 22nd, 2005 at 12:39 pmDear trolltards:
The exact same clause that gives the President authority to APPOINT a SCOTUS justice gives the SENATE the right to ADVISE AND CONSENT. Meaning, THEY ARE NOT RUBBER STAMPS.
July 22nd, 2005 at 12:43 pmAlso, I've noticed the "ButBush-1" non-argument being thrown around. Last time I checked, we weren't a dictatorship. Damn totalitarians.
assamite,
but the Senate has advised and consented a certain way over the years. it would be entirely out of the ordinary to filibuster a guy because he might be a conservative. this is not totalitarian in anyway, since President Bush was elected by the people of the United States. what in the world are you thinking?
July 22nd, 2005 at 1:15 pmI'd call it New World Order through No World Order.
July 22nd, 2005 at 1:44 pmre: #75
You STILL THINK bush (aka monkey boy, prince of darkness, beosibob, half wit, shit-for-brains....) was ELECTED. What color is the sky in your world?
In 2000, he tried to steal the election, and was
SELECTED. Yes "read my lips" S E L E C T E D.
In 2004, he DID steal the election, thru diebold (research it), and Jim Crow tactics.
Just another nutjob, but we still try to FIX STUPID.
Have a swell day
July 30th, 2005 at 12:14 amPayday Loans
If someone you know are little on loans just effortlessly apply for a online cash advance that is special, self-explanatory, and speedy today!
March 20th, 2008 at 11:33 amCarpet lover
April 6th, 2008 at 12:06 am