By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – President Bush named federal appeals judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday to fill the first Supreme Court vacancy in a decade, delighting Republicans and unsettling Democrats by picking a young jurist of impeccably conservative credentials.
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the 50-year-old Roberts would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, long a swing vote on a divided court on abortion, affirmative action, states’ rights and other volatile issues.
In a prime-time, nationally televised announcement at the White House, Bush said Roberts would “strictly apply the Constitution in laws, not legislate from the bench.”
In brief remarks of his own, Roberts said he has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court in a career as a private attorney and government lawyer. “I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court, and I don’t think it was just from the nerves,” he said.
“I look forward to the next step in the process before the United States Senate,” he added.
That was a reference to Senate confirmation hearings, expected in late August or early September — and a vote on a timetable that would allow him to take his place on the court by the time a new term begins in October.
Reaction from Republican senators was strongly supportive. “He is a brilliant constitutional lawyer with unquestioned integrity,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.
Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee issued a statement called for confirmation proceedings that “treat Judge Roberts with dignity and respect.” Echoing a refrain from this spring’s a bitter struggle over Bush’s conservative appeals court nominees, he called for a yes-or-no vote before the court’s term begins Oct 3.
Democratic response was measured, but initially at least, offered no hint of a filibuster.
“The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry,” said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Referring to planned hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid said, “I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Democrats would want to probe Roberts’ views to see whether he holds “mainstream values.”
Abortion — arguably the most politically charged issue to confront Congress and the courts — swiftly emerged as a point of contention.
The abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America announced its opposition to Roberts when word of his appointment leaked before Bush’s formal announcement.
In a written statement, the organization cited a brief Roberts had filed with the Supreme Court while serving as deputy solicitor general in the Reagan administration. In the decision, Roberts said “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” referring to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that established a woman’s right to abortion.
The National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion, countered with a statement of its own. “Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion,” said the group’s legislative director, Douglas Johnson. “Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands.”
Chris:
You hit the nail right on the head, right now the right wing seems to think they know what is best for everyone, that was the whole point of everything Santorum said on the daily show. Santorum kept saying the government should encourage the ideal situation, who is to decide what is ideal. What works for one person will not work for everyone and someone needs to sit down with the right wing and explain that to them.
Government has a responsibilty to treat murderers with humanity, but not mentally handicapped people? Shows where your priorities lie…with those who chose a life of wickedness, over those who have a handicap they had no control over.
Contest amonst yourself Dead, Lincolns words, and see if you can deny your belief, and accept that for him, it was about the slaves.
“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.”
–From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce
“I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
–From the August 22, 1862 Letter to Horace Greeley
“In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free — honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best, hope of earth.”
–From the December 1, 1862 Message to Congress
“We have, as all will agree, a free Government, where every man has a right to be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed.”
–From the August 22, 1864 Speech to the One Hundred Sixty-fourth Ohio Regiment
“The Autocrat of all the Russias will resign his crown, and proclaim his subjects free republicans sooner than will our American masters voluntarily give up their slaves.”
–From the August 15, 1855 Letter to George Robertson
“You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it.”
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
“The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the master of your own negroes.”
–From the August 24, 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed
“I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”
–From the June 16, 1858 House Divided Speech
“This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave.”
–From the April 6, 1859 Letter to Henry Pierce
“One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended.”
–From the March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address
“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.”
–From the April 4, 1864 Letter to Albert Hodges
“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.”
–From the March 4, 1865 Inaugural Address
Not to prove the point that the Civil War was or wasn’t primarily about slavery – but to highlight the fact that Lincoln was in fact a politician before he became a series of statues all over the country and the five dollar bill…and the penny.
Take the Iraq War for instance…how much has changed along the way? In the 2000 debates, Bush didn’t believe in ‘nation building’ – then it was about Saddam being an imminent threat – and today it’s about rescuing Iraqis and spreading democracy. Bush – like Lincoln – is too a politician.
I don’t get how this makes any sense at all. Break it down, and what substance exists in this statement? Is it not merely a glop of ‘politics speak’?
Because nobody is advocating that we kill murder suspects the moment they’re captured…but some people are advocating the government superceding the law in ‘Shaivo’-cases…that is, when the press is covering the story, Michael Savage has been stocked up on PCP and Sean Hannity’s had an oil change.
There is no comparison in HOW we punish murderers, to how Shiavo was punished, that is injustice at the highest level. A murderers humanity was considered greater than that of a disabled person, even dogs are forbid from being starved to death. This is injustice, food isn’t medical treatment, guards standing at the door turning away people who wanted to give her food and water, to see prove that this wasn’t allowing her to refuse medical treatment through her power of attorney, it was a state order that she wanted to be starved to death, and have her parents barred from giving her food that she may have been able to take. If she couldn’t swallow she would have suffocated on her saliva. Therefore, it was the state giving Michael Shiavo to prevent any one from giving her food or water. The precedent is now set that such rights can be given by the court. Courts can tell a family its ok to starve your dog to death, because thats what the dog wants. Even though the dog can’t speak for itself. The karma of condemning a parents love for their child as that of ‘keeping her as a pet’ will get back around to you one day.
ONe more note on Roberts:
Roberts helped on gay-rights case
By Richard A. Serrano
Los Angeles Times
John Roberts advised use of “equal-protections” clause.
“WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.”
Eventually the Dobsonites are going to go nuts(ok, they already are nuts) over this guy
Michael – the problem with your argument is it ignores established law, established medical facts concerning her condition and tramples on the ‘sanctity of marriage’. Starvation of a coherent person is completely different than starvation of someone who’s terminally ill. It’s like comparing a flu shot with a stab wound to the neck.