Bush nominates his new Chief Justice

September 5, 2005 5:38 AM

Bush Nominates Roberts As Chief Justice
President Bush has nominated John Roberts to succeed William H. Rehnquist as chief justice, and called on the Senate to confirm him before the Supreme Court opens its fall term on October 3rd. Is he really the right person for the job? This piece on him, by Harold Evans of the BBC, makes me wonder.
posted by tomcosgrave (96 comments total)

It's still not too late for Sandra to change her mind.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:43 AM on September 5, 2005

This is kind of a strange move on Bush's part? Does he know something about Roberts that the rest of us don't? This is going to make the Senate that much more insistent on getting a full picture of who Roberts is.

With Bush's political capital at an all time low I find it hard to believe that he'll be able to push this through so quickly.
posted by bshort at 5:55 AM on September 5, 2005

Well, the alternatives seem like they'd be even more perilous for the administration. And it's not like Bush needs more fires to put out right now. They needed to make a decision and move on.

As much as I hate to say it, I think they made the right decision here. Now it remains to be seen who they put up for the other vacancy.
posted by selfnoise at 6:01 AM on September 5, 2005

I think he will be pushed through in a timely manner. Excluding about 3 or 4 "fringe" Democrats and Republicans on either side, the Senate is one big happy Party. Or at least they seem to vote that way.
posted by Ron at 6:01 AM on September 5, 2005

Captial shmapital, it wouldn't matter regardless. The democrats are going to make life as difficult as possible whilst accomplishing little, it's become their job now in most phases of government. Merits and qualifications take a back seat to political gain and this will be no difference. As for nominating him as chief justice, I don't see how it matters much as it's mainly an administrative title.
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:05 AM on September 5, 2005

this nomination serves two purposes:

1) it distracts attention from the hurricane
2) it ensures that there are only two confirmation hearings, rather than three (ie, if they appointed a current justice, there's one hearing, and then one for each of the new justices. only other way to avoid it is to nominate someone else all the way to chief right away. but roberts seems non-controversial enough. they're following the path of least resistance.)

p.s. -- rove is an expert smotherer. or so says his gimp.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:07 AM on September 5, 2005

He's doing this to try and distract people from his incompetence with Katrina. I saw the Dems need to stall both this nomination, and whoever he nominates to replace O'Connor until at least 2006. The Court has had unfilled seats in the past and it didn't hurt the nation. I like the idea of having a 4-3 majority for a while.

Not that the Senate Dems will, being that they're spineless colaborators to the man, but its a nice fantasy.
posted by sotonohito at 6:10 AM on September 5, 2005

There's nothing in the Constitution specifying the number of Supreme Court Justices. Bush didn't actually even have to wait for a vacancy to nominate someone, and there's no reason that a new one must be approved now. I would love it if the Senate just stood up and said they aren't going to approve any ridiculous nominees. It doesn't seem likely, though. I mean, if they let Bolton (and every other Bush nominee) through, why not him? I think
this wikipedia article has it right; it already lists Roberts as the 17th Chief Justice.
posted by leapingsheep at 6:13 AM on September 5, 2005

The president is showing decisive leadership in this time of national crisis.

I almost was able to keep a straight face all the way through typing that last sentence. Almost.
posted by psmealey at 6:15 AM on September 5, 2005

"his nomination serves two purposes:
1) it distracts attention from the hurricane"


That would go toward my point about the democrats. How you can have any credibility after that line is a wonder...
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:16 AM on September 5, 2005

Stategery: nominate him now and then call any objections to the nomination "divisive partisan bickering at a time of national tragedy" or words to that effect.
posted by pracowity at 6:16 AM on September 5, 2005

As a woman, I'm not too crazy about some of the stuff I'm reading about him but he loves P.G. Wodehouse? Oh well I love P. G. Wodehouse. Could be he is an OK guy. Except if you think about it Wodehouse's writing is very much a product of the twenties and thirties and most females fall into the "helpless damsel" catagory with a few "hectoring harridans" thrown in. Any free-spirited career gals making an appearance quickly got themselves married off and I think that's the way Roberts would like the world to be.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:18 AM on September 5, 2005

Maybe John Roberts is alright, despite his champions. I think the Evans article is unfair, portraying a couple touching stories and implying that the judgements were heartless.

Also, attempts to cement this "red-blue" divide among Americans and Mefites and assign constant moral values to each "side" are annoying. And stupid.
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:19 AM on September 5, 2005

"Stategery: nominate him now and then call any objections to the nomination "divisive partisan bickering at a time of national tragedy"

now that one I can buy!!
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:20 AM on September 5, 2005

Any free-spirited career gals making an appearance quickly got themselves married off and I think that's the way Roberts would like the world to be.

Is that how you would like the world to be, SLoG, P.G. Wodehouse fan that you are?
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:21 AM on September 5, 2005

leapingsheep, when I read that wiki article half an hour ago, it listed a 17th slot with Roberts [as yet to be confirmed], but as of now the 17th slot has been removed.

My favorite part of the nomination speech was when Bush said, "It is fitting that a great chief justice be followed in office by a person who shared his deep reverence for the Constitution", perhaps doing little to assuage fears that the gap between church and state is more than a few nanometers.
posted by cactus at 6:24 AM on September 5, 2005

now that one I can buy!!

I thought you might.
posted by pracowity at 6:25 AM on September 5, 2005

Ms. Gravy, I have to admit that hearing that Roberts is a Wodehouse fan does warm the hackles towards him somewhat. But even those of us who like nothing better than to escape into the fantasy world of Bertie and Jeeves and Psmith and Uncle Fred generally recognize that the Wodehousian universe is about as far from reality -- even Edwardian reality -- as it is possible to be. We can only pray that Roberts knows better than to take it seriously.

That said, even with the complete F-up that is the government's reaction to the hurricane, the Senate has a duty to carefully consider, probe, and judge Judge Roberts. To let him slide into the job to avoid being falsely accused of "divisive partisan bickering at a time of national tragedy" would be to fail utterly in their duty to the Senate, to themselves, and to the nation as a whole.

Now, more than ever, we need the leadership that seems to have been washed out of Washington for too long.
posted by mmahaffie at 6:30 AM on September 5, 2005

That would go toward my point about the democrats.

hey, dude, do you think bush would make a sunday night chief justice appointment if he weren't terrified for his political life? on fucking labor day weekend? what's the goddamned hurry? hurri-cane katrina, that's what.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:37 AM on September 5, 2005

by a person who shared his deep reverence for the Constitution

ROE v. WADE

Decided January 22, 1973
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

posted by matteo at 6:54 AM on September 5, 2005

er, i mean monday morning holiday appointment?

normally, bush would be sawing logs (or, perhaps, clearing brush) at 8 am on a holiday.

i mean, it's a fucking HOLIDAY! this is bush we're talking about. his religion is TIME OFF!
posted by Hat Maui at 6:54 AM on September 5, 2005

"do you think bush would make a sunday night chief justice appointment if he weren't terrified for his political life?"

...but he's not, so what's your point?
posted by j.p. Hung at 6:56 AM on September 5, 2005

1) it distracts attention from the hurricane

Nothing can do that. He's getting the nomination over with so he can hurry back to New Orleans and get his picture taken with that "John Wayne" guy.
posted by planetkyoto at 7:01 AM on September 5, 2005

i mean, it's a fucking HOLIDAY! this is bush we're talking about. his religion is TIME OFF!

Oh, then why am I at work right now? Sure, no one else is here and I totaly forgot about labor, but still!

Also, look. I realize the left hates roberts, but is he really that bad? I'm not sure trying to stall untill untill 2006 is really practical.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confermed in a 96-3 vote. I expect roberts to sail through.
posted by delmoi at 7:09 AM on September 5, 2005

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confermed in a 96-3 vote. I expect roberts to sail through.

I think the days of ignoring political viewpoints and voting almost strictly upon legal acumen have passed.
posted by caddis at 7:19 AM on September 5, 2005

>warm the hackles
Well, maybe that is what you meant.
posted by Wolfdog at 7:29 AM on September 5, 2005

The Big Question: Will Roberts go for the self-appointed gold stripes?
posted by Mach5 at 7:29 AM on September 5, 2005

Any free-spirited career gals making an appearance quickly got themselves married off and I think that's the way Roberts would like the world to be.

Is that how you would like the world to be, SLoG, P.G. Wodehouse fan that you are?
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:21 AM EST

That's a good question. And I'm not so sure I am anymore. I collected and cataloged his complete works in my teens and twenties, but I really don't read him much anymore. As pointed out above, it is a completely fictional Universe that Wodehouse created, and it is fun to visit. But if asked for my favorite authors, I don't think he makes the list.

More to the point, is it doesn't contradict what I am reading about Roberts' old-school approach to woman's role in the work force which boils down to: It would be better for everyone if ladies stay out of law school because they need to quit when they get married anyway.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:47 AM on September 5, 2005

I feel like I'm being assailed by a blitzkrieg of stupidity by this administration. They're doing so many dumb, damaging things at once that I can't keep track. If I take the time to even halfway explore a single facet of their idiot activity, dozens of others will slip right past me. I can't keep up with their botched war AND the botched hurricane relief AND whatever jack-booted, mouth-foaming, subhuman they're trying to appoint. They've made a sea of mistakes and I can't hold the whole thing in my vision long enough to make sense of it.
I feel like that's probably their plan. And, to my horror, it's working.
posted by Jon-o at 7:49 AM on September 5, 2005

First, I think this shows Bush is not going to use this nomination to distract from New Orleans, or at least not as much as he could. If he wanted to do that, he would nominate someone who even he knows is a total partisan freakshow. Roberts is, as has been mentioned before, the path of least resistance.

It is also good for Bush's legacy. Assuming Roberts turns out to be a good CJ, he will be there for a long time. Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee. Long after Bush is nothing more than pothole in American political history (like Nixon) Roberts will still be around and known as a Bush appointee.

Also, j.p. Hung -- I find it amusing that you complain loudly about partisanship while being highly partisan yourself. Are you blind to your own hypocrisy? Not to mention you equate someone you take to be liberal posting on Metafilter as "the Democrats."
posted by zaack at 7:52 AM on September 5, 2005

Well, this is a better fit then Roberts replacing O'Connor.
posted by tranquileye at 7:52 AM on September 5, 2005

More to the point, is it doesn't contradict what I am reading about Roberts' old-school approach to woman's role in the work force which boils down to: It would be better for everyone if ladies stay out of law school because they need to quit when they get married anyway.

Wouldn't the fact that Robert's wife is currently working as an attorney contradict this?
posted by gyc at 8:08 AM on September 5, 2005

Jon-O: maybe you should quit all of your other productive activities and just monitor the Bush administration full-time. Please post your findings on a web site so that we can keep apprised of your progress. Thanks.
posted by esquire at 8:11 AM on September 5, 2005

Roberts will likely be an excellent choice for Chief Justice. The only real roles the Chief Justice has is to preside over the Senate during an impeachment hearing and to assign majority opinions. Rehnquist was always judicious in doling out the assignments, making sure not to alienate any one member. That is why the current Court, while politically divergent, maintained a great sense of comraderie.

Roberts, known for being collegial and funny, has created admirers out of most people he has worked with, both sides of the aisle. That sort of bonhomie is a boon to the Court. Imagine if Scalia were elevated? His rancorous personality and disrespect towards other justices would create an internally hostile court.

(This is all assuming that Roberts will pass the Senate anyway).
posted by Falconetti at 8:19 AM on September 5, 2005

This gives Bush and the neocons the power to appoint a Chief Justice that will sit in that position for probably 35-45 years. Rehnquist's tenure as Chief was already one of the longest in the court's history and he was only there for 19 years. This is a guarantee that their ideals will be influencing America for the next half century. Hopefully Roberts will turn out to be one of the biggest surprise SCOTUS appointments and he will flip-flop on every decision that the Right thought he would side with them on!
posted by fresh-n-minty at 8:20 AM on September 5, 2005

jack-booted, mouth-foaming, subhuman they're trying to appoint.

That is such a ridiculous thing to say about Roberts, who has made friends with Democrats and Republicans alike throughout his disinguished career. I am sure he has faults and I personally wouldn't nominate him, but such uninformed vitriol makes people look uninformed and ignorant.
posted by Falconetti at 8:21 AM on September 5, 2005

I hope he doesn't start wearing the gold stripes. Those were a tacky move by Rehnquist.
posted by fraxil at 8:25 AM on September 5, 2005

Just because Roberts is a fairly conservative Catholic man does not mean that he is a stupid literalist, and I find this discussion of the 'revelation' of his appreciation of PG Wodehouse and how that means he wants women to be housewives a little ridiculous. Liberals aren't the only people who can appreciate literature where the fictional universe doesn't accord with their ideal society.

Roberts appears to be a principled jurist with a conscience, which is light-years ahead of Clarence Thomas's ilk of partisan hacks. I may not agree with his decisions (or his taste in literature), but at least I believe he will apply the law as he interprets it. I actually feel fairly lucky that he's the appointee and not Gonzales or someone equally evil.
posted by miss tea at 8:32 AM on September 5, 2005

Am I the only one thinking darkly that he's pressing for this so that if he's impeached, he'll have a friend running the hearings?

At this point, his public approval ratings are so low that if someone had the balls to call for impeachment, they could at least get him hauled into the Senate over the handling of the Iraq war.

It has to be in the back of his mind.
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:34 AM on September 5, 2005

Bumping Roberts up to Chief is just another example of Bush ducking a decision by "staying the course" -- vaccuum at the top -- and standing pat and waiting for events to sweep us into the next crisis, adrift and rudderless with nobody on the bridge.
posted by warbaby at 8:40 AM on September 5, 2005

considering who Bush appointed for head of FEMA....
posted by destro at 8:44 AM on September 5, 2005

Am I the only one thinking darkly that he's pressing for this so that if he's impeached, he'll have a friend running the hearings?

Impeached by a Republican-controlled Congress? I wonder what it would take...
posted by Tullius at 8:52 AM on September 5, 2005

That is such a ridiculous thing to say about Roberts

Yeah, I guess it is. Sorry. I'm a little overly wound up.



By the way, esquire, if you ever did anything besides snark, I'd be more inclined to listen to your advice.
posted by Jon-o at 8:54 AM on September 5, 2005

Tullius, how about public approval ratings equivilent to Nixon's in the wake of Whitewater? At least one public poll got that result.

I don't believe Bush is going to rebound. I think the public at large is quickly getting fed up with him, and his response to Katrina (especially if the stories of him faking food distribution sites for photo-ops get out) may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. He's in a downward spiral, and about the only thing that MIGHT get the public back on his side is another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11.

There will come a point that anyone valuing their career in Congress will stop protecting him.
posted by InnocentBystander at 8:59 AM on September 5, 2005

For those of you worried about Hudge Robert's conservatism, perhaps this bit of optimism will help: Roberts is now slated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist, already a staunch conservative. Given Bush's recent public image problem, he may now be forced to nominate someone more moderate to replace Justice O'Connor.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:01 AM on September 5, 2005

Nixon and Whitewater? Fabulous!

Roberts is a good appointment for Chief Justice because he will be easily confirmed.

It's really entertaining how Bush or Carl Rove are someone else on the team gets the Left and the media chasing after false-appointees to the point where, when the real one is announced, he (or she) is more moderate and not really objected to.

In a few days, the electorate will come to realize the primary blame for Katrina relief/evacuation plans is with the Governor and Mayor, and any impact on Bush's popularity will be gone. In fact, there's an excellent chance that once people realize what has happened, Bush will look like an even better leader: the locals were incompetent, and the feds got in there very quickly once they failed.

So, dream on about your fictional loss in popularity.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:07 AM on September 5, 2005

This is kind of a strange move on Bush's part?

It makes perfect sense. Bush is scewed - he doesn't have enough political capital to shove through another wingnut given his poor ratings, the war and now this Katrina screw up.

His next appointee will have to be at least semi-moderate - somewhere slightly to the left and close to center than Roberts.

Thing is, he can't rightly replace the arch-conservative Rehnquist with someone seen as a moderate - or worse someone who could be a closet progressive like a Souter.

The solution comes in an odd maneuver: appoint Roberts to the chief spot - essentially making him Rehnquist's replacement - leaving the O'connor slot open to being replaced by a committee-friendly moderate.

Of course it's even more fitting given that Roberts clerked for Rehnquist - just the sort of "continuation" that conservatives like.
posted by wfrgms at 9:26 AM on September 5, 2005

Impeached by a Republican-controlled Congress? I wonder what it would take...

What it would take is a revolt from within the Republican party. Bush's handling of Katrina has been so atrocious that even Republicans are getting sick of him now. They are starting to realize that Bush is doing irreparable damage to the party and his ineptitude regarding Katrina and Iraq prolly is going to cost a lot of them their jobs in 2006. By impeaching him, they may be able to gain back some credibility with the American public. It could happen. There is a chink in the armor.
posted by wsg at 9:30 AM on September 5, 2005

Metafilter 2000: Bush is too stupid to be elected!

Metafilter 2004: Bush lied!

Metafilter 2005: Katrina is Bush's fault and there's a chink in his armor!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 AM on September 5, 2005

Roberts doesn't really have that much experience as a judge, and his ability to perform the duties of a Supreme Court justice, much less the Chief Justice, may therefore be lacking at first. It could take him some time to get up to speed.

But remember that Dwight Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, and Bush I appointed David Souter. All but one had strong conservative credentials when they were appointed. The Democrats will not kick up a fuss about this nomination, so all we can do is wait and see.
posted by dilettante at 9:36 AM on September 5, 2005

...local Bush apologists notwithstanding.
posted by wsg at 9:37 AM on September 5, 2005

ParisParamus vs. Metafilter. Who will win?
posted by psmealey at 9:42 AM on September 5, 2005

I have to say that this is not a way to distract attention away from the hurricane (like that would be possible). No, I suspect that this might very well be an attempt to distract attention from the upcoming nomination for associate justice.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 9:44 AM on September 5, 2005

(Of course, Bush actually lost at least the 2000 election, PP, but you can keep rewriting history to make yourself happier, if you like.)
posted by kyrademon at 9:44 AM on September 5, 2005

Roberts doesn't really have that much experience as a judge, and his ability to perform the duties of a Supreme Court justice, much less the Chief Justice, may therefore be lacking at first. It could take him some time to get up to speed.

But remember that Dwight Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun, and Bush I appointed David Souter. All but one had strong conservative credentials when they were appointed. The Democrats will not kick up a fuss about this nomination, so all we can do is wait and see.

I think dilettante is right here. (And I note that Earl Warren had never spent time on the bench at all before being nominated as Chief Justice.)
posted by Vidiot at 9:50 AM on September 5, 2005

(Of course, Bush actually lost at least the 2000 election, PP, but you can keep rewriting history to make yourself happier, if you like.)

Whatever you may think of of ParisParamus, this is the kind of bullshit that keeps the left mired in electoral failure. Bush did not lose the 2000 election. He is the President. Stop living in some alternate reality and focus on changing the future.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:54 AM on September 5, 2005

leapingsheep: There's nothing in the Constitution specifying the number of Supreme Court Justices. Bush didn't actually even have to wait for a vacancy to nominate someone, and there's no reason that a new one must be approved now.

No, there's nothing in the Constitution, but there is a federal law (can't remember which one, or when it was passed, but it was pretty early on, probably late 1790's or early 1800's) stating 9 is the magic number. Remember FDR and his whole court packing scheme that failed?
posted by papakwanz at 10:08 AM on September 5, 2005

Ok followup, here's the story from Wikipedia on the number of justices:
The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. This law was passed by the Radical Republicans to deny Democratic President Andrew Johnson the ability to make any Supreme Court appointments. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866, and a second in 1867. In 1869, after President Johnson's retirement, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court so that he could add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies; however, the plan failed in Congress. The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior"; the term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life.

So again, leapingsheep, Bush couldn't just place however many people he wanted on the court unless Congress decided to increase the # of seats (oops, I hope I didn't just give them an idea...)
posted by papakwanz at 10:13 AM on September 5, 2005

He is President. He did not win the 2000 election, however. Acknowledging that does not keep me from focusing on the future.
posted by kyrademon at 10:14 AM on September 5, 2005

Remember FDR and his whole court packing scheme that failed?

"Failed?" He didn't increase the number of justices, but he certainly got most of what he wanted out of he whole thing.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:19 AM on September 5, 2005

ParisParamus? I thought you picked up your toys and pissed off home a few days ago, never to return...

Or was that yet another giant obnoxious ploy for attention to break up the otherwise unending troll-fest?


GEORGE BUSH IS A WONDERFUL LEADER, EVERYTHING IS FINE, NOTHING IS WRONG, PLEASE STEP OVER THE BODIES AND MOVE ALONG, NOTHING TO SEE HERE
posted by stenseng at 10:34 AM on September 5, 2005

Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun

at the third attempt, after segregationist Haynsworth and white supremacist Carswell were sunk by the Senate (the Republicans, back then, used to sink their President's lamest, most nutzoid nominees)


he certainly got most of what he wanted out of he whole thing.

you're in the minority of scholars there, the court-packing plan was a very bad setback for FDR. deaths and retirements helped him reshape the Court totally, but the plan itself was a fiasco, there's little question about it
posted by matteo at 10:42 AM on September 5, 2005

Jon-o:

> jack-booted, mouth-foaming, subhuman they're trying to appoint

You're hunting administration blunders and you can see Roberts as a jack-booted, mouth-foaming, subhuman? I'd say with an eye like that you'll have no trouble "finding" whatever you seek. How the man Bush must enrage you, the way he incompetently eats lunch, traitorously brushes his teeth. Those fools, fools, who can look at him wickedly tying his shoes and fail to tremble at the naked evil!

Kos needs you, now!
posted by jfuller at 10:53 AM on September 5, 2005

Oh come on jfuller. You're not fooling anyone. I don't think there's anyone here who SERIOUSLY believes that Bush knows how to tie his own shoes...
posted by stenseng at 11:02 AM on September 5, 2005

the way he incompetently eats lunch, traitorously brushes his teeth. Those fools, fools, who can look at him wickedly tying his shoes and fail to tremble at the naked evil!

Sounds like the Swift Boad Vets refering to Kerry. They said it was never about the election, and they were doing it on principle. I assume they hound him to this day, following him to Blackbuster to criticize his movie choices, too.
posted by Balisong at 11:03 AM on September 5, 2005

Innocent, at the time Nixon's impeachment hearings began, Congress was controlled by the Democrats, so the President's flagging popularity may have been more of a factor then than now. In addition, I think that Nixon's popularity was significantly lower than that which the President currently enjoys.

I think that wsg has it. Bush would have to be viewed as a political liability by his party before any impeachment proceedings. As loyalty seems to be a big thing within the parties, any break with the President would have to be preceded by an enormous public outcry... far greater than what we are currently seeing.

Of course, this presupposes, perhaps unfairly, some evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors committed by the President.
posted by Tullius at 11:11 AM on September 5, 2005

I assume they hound him to this day, following him to Blackbuster to criticize his movie choices, too.

I'm guessing they don't stock Shaft or Sweet Sweetback's Baadasss Song?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:13 AM on September 5, 2005

ParisParamus: In a few days, the electorate will come to realize the primary blame for Katrina relief/evacuation plans is with the Governor and Mayor, and any impact on Bush's popularity will be gone. In fact, there's an excellent chance that once people realize what has happened, Bush will look like an even better leader: the locals were incompetent, and the feds got in there very quickly once they failed.

As an apologist for the "feds," humor me and explain how the right will spin this for the country:

Announcer: The relief operation is the largest ever conducted in America. It’s being coordinated by the US Northern Command in Colorado. Leftenant Commander Sean Kelly explains how the relief effort is being organized.

Kelly: US Northern Command is the command that coordinates the military support for our federal and state agencies. They call up and request a capability and we try and provide that capability, whether it’s medical resources, search and rescue helicopters, food, water, transportation, communications; that’s what we provide.

A: So it sounds like you’re providing a bit of everything. I mean, do you know how much you’re actually providing?

K: Right now we’ve got 4,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marine and coast guardsmen supporting this. They’ve delivered more than 9 million meals, I can’t remember how many millions of liters of water.

A: 9 million meals? Do you actually have 9 million meals?

K: It’s those "meals ready to eat". The packaged meals that the Army takes out with them out in the field. We have 9 million of ’em ready. I know at least 100,000 went to the Superdome the other night to help the people out there in New Orleans. So they’re staged at various places throughout Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.

A: Now I’m sure you’re aware of the criticism that the authorities have been slow to respond to this. When did you get the order to start relief work?

K: NorthCom started planning before the storm even hit. We were ready for the storm when it hit Florida because, as you remember, it crossed the bottom part of Florida, and then we were planning, you know, once it was pointed towards the Gulf Coast. So what we did was we activated what we call defense coordinating officers to work with the state to say okay, what do you think you’ll need, and we set up staging bases that could be started. We had the USS Baton sailing almost behind the hurricane so that after the hurricane made landfall it’s search and rescue helicopters would be available almost immediately. So we had things ready. The only caveat is, we have to wait until the President authorizes us to do so. The laws of the United States say that the military can’t just act in this fashion, we have to wait for the President to give us permission.

Quite a shocking cock-up. Seriously, though, how will you and the other ditto-heads sell this to the people?
posted by John of Michigan at 11:17 AM on September 5, 2005

jfuller:

Way to harp on something that I already retracted.
posted by Jon-o at 11:17 AM on September 5, 2005

I find this discussion of the 'revelation' of his appreciation of PG Wodehouse and how that means he wants women to be housewives a little ridiculous.
posted by miss tea at 11:32 AM EST


Not to get too defensive here, but that particular aspect comes directly out of the opinion piece by Harold Evens posted at the top of this discussion:

There's yet another important light into his soul. He has a passion for P.G. Wodehouse. And anyone who appreciates the Empress of Blandings Castle - the story of a pig, you will remember - might turn out to be not the villain of the piece but a prince after all.

I was just pointing out that-- much as I love Wodehouse-- loving him doesn't necessarily mean Roberts will make a fair Jurist when it comes to equality among the sexes.

This is NOW's take on Roberts:

Roberts was a steering committee member of the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative organization committed to returning to a pre-Civil War era of unquestioned states' rights and rolling back legislation that has advanced women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections and health and safety standards.

the conservative Family Research Council, said that President Bush "promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:44 AM on September 5, 2005

Oh and I almost forgot this:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:46 AM on September 5, 2005

Roberts was a steering committee member of the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative organization committed to returning to a pre-Civil War era of unquestioned states' rights and rolling back legislation that has advanced women's rights, civil rights, environmental protections and health and safety standards.


That's just a complete mischaracterization of the Federalist Society.
posted by gyc at 11:52 AM on September 5, 2005

Would you care to re-characterize then, gyc? Or at least provide a link or two or three?
[warning - all PDFs]
posted by zaack at 12:12 PM on September 5, 2005

Perhaps this is bushies secret nightmare? Not one, but two appointments that have to be right wing enough to satisfy the promises he made to the religious nuts.
posted by fingerbang at 12:21 PM on September 5, 2005

Would you care to re-characterize then, gyc? Or at least provide a link or two or three?
[warning - all PDFs]

Well, as a member of the Federalist Society myself, I can say that just about the only thing everyone in the society agrees on is that the judiciary should say what the law is, not what it should be. The society is made up of a wide variety of people, from conservatives of all stripes to libertarians, and not necessarily just Republicans, so it would be incorrect to assert that it's a conservative, let along ultra-conservative organization.
posted by gyc at 12:52 PM on September 5, 2005

You know, although I agree that the homemaker statement wasn't ideally phrased, I completely disagree that it means what NOW seems to think it means. To me, it is wholly consistent with Roberts's perspective that government's role should be limited and not advocacy. There's a difference between equal treatment under the law (which is his stand) and advocacy such as the laws he was specifically dismissing in that memo-- like the one that required women and men doing substantially the same jobs to be paid 100% equally.

And personally, as a feminist, although I do believe that more homemakers should be free to pursue whatever career they so choose, I do not believe that my tax dollars should be spent pursuing such a goal, and I am not sure it would be an unalloyed public good that rises to that standard.

Substantively, to dismiss a policy or law because it's bad public policy is not to disagree with its goals. For example, I advocate equal opportunity for women, men, gay people, all races, etc. However, I am opposed to most forms of affirmitive action. That doesn't make me a racist, or against the goal of improving the experiences of minorities in the US-- it means I believe that increasing school funding, paying teachers higher salaries, and reducing class sizes, and redressing historical inequalities by changing the way school funding is administered.

BTW, you are right, I did not acknowledge that the Wodehouse discussion came from the article. Sorry. (But I still think it's silly.)
posted by miss tea at 1:04 PM on September 5, 2005

In general, I think Chief Justices should be someone who is already on the Supreme Court. From all reports, Rehnquist was a very impressive Chief Justice, while his predecessor, Warren Burger, was an awful Chief Justice. A Justice can learn about how the Chief Justice job works from both good and bad examples. Roberts has had neither. He may be temperamentally suited for the job, but that doesn't make up for the lack of experience. Obviously, Roberts would hardly be the first Chief Justice with no previous experience on the Court, but I strongly believe that such appointments are mistakes.
posted by spira at 1:17 PM on September 5, 2005

Actually spira, it's my understanding this is not an unprecedented move. I can't find the links to prove that but I know I've heard this has been done on more than a few occassions. The chief justice post is primarily an administrative one even if it suggests otherwise.
posted by j.p. Hung at 4:33 PM on September 5, 2005

"Roberts has had neither.

Roberts clerked under Rehnquist. I'm not saying it qualifies him for the position, I'm just sayin'.
posted by j.p. Hung at 4:35 PM on September 5, 2005

Thirteen of the sixteen Chief Justices were appointed from outside the Court. White, Stone, and Rehnquist were the only three to be elevated from Associate Justice to Chief Justice. Indeed, many of those appointed weren't even judges before taking the center chair. There is no question in my mind that Roberts is quite qualified for the position, and opposition on the basis of his qualifications is doomed to fail. Oppose him on political grounds if you so choose, but at least understand that Roberts was a brilliant lawyer, and by all accounts was a fair, impartial, and deliberative judge on the D.C. Circuit. He is emphatically NOT a "jack-booted, mouth-foaming, subhuman."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:57 PM on September 5, 2005

I have always understood that the position of Chief Justice is largely ceremonial - he doles out opinion-writing assignments after the majority and dissents are identified, and may preside over an impeachment proceeding.

Anything else? Anything of significance here?
posted by Cletis at 5:40 PM on September 5, 2005

One of the important roles of the Chief Justice, at least ideally, is to act as a consensus builder on the Court. When differences exist between the Justices about handling a particular case, the Chief Justice should be trying to bring the two sides together, and ideally, reaching unanimity. This is a difficult job to do, and by all accounts Rehnquist did this job admirably considering the disparate ideologies of the Justices. You can see the effect the position had on Rehnquist by comparing the opinions he wrote before and after taking the center chair. His opinions post-elevation are much more opaque, in an effort to garner more votes on the Court. This is one of the main reasons Scalia and Thomas weren't considered serious candidates for the position; both write caustic opinions on occasion, and Scalia in particular is often openly critical of his colleagues on the Court. An outsider, particularly one with Judge Robert's demeanor, could like perform the duties of the position more ably.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:46 PM on September 5, 2005

at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

The joke being that the last thing America needs is more lawyers, not espousing a serious personal belief that women should not become lawyers. It was a cute self-deprecating comment that could be taken in more than one way.
posted by Ryvar at 8:00 PM on September 5, 2005

Meh.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:10 PM on September 5, 2005

Does the idea of selecting a guy who's not only never given a SCOTUS decision, but isn't even yet on SCOTUS, as Chief Justice actually make sense to anyone at all?

Evidently it's fucking amateur night in Washington. It would have to be, when the head of FEMA is told by the country's chief executive that he's doing a great job.
posted by clevershark at 8:28 PM on September 5, 2005

...a Chief Justice that will sit in that position for probably 35-45 years.'
Bingo. Is someone who has spent their entire working life in DC, and has only held any bench for 2 years qualified? It's par for the course for Bush of course, but has any Chief Justice had less realworld and legal experience? He's like Bush in many ways, and approved by Rove, so that's all that matters to them--how about us? Roberts' hearing will be delayed because of Katrina--we'll see what happens then--the standards for a Chief Justice are different, since they usually come from outside the Court. His previous opinions and experiences will come to the fore much more now--they can't hide everything.

I think it's interesting that they want a gay man to be Chief Justice--the rightwing is ok with that? the fundies?
posted by amberglow at 9:27 PM on September 5, 2005

ParisParamus writes "Bush will look like an even better leader"

Evidently they have very good crack in your neck of the woods PP.
posted by clevershark at 9:38 PM on September 5, 2005

We're pleased that Bush moved so quickly in nominating John Roberts to replace Chief Justice William Rehniquist, but others seem bent on raising questions about Roberts's qualifications: no experience, too young, no leadership, blah blah blah. We agree this may be a problem, but there's a resume fix, an experience so profound that it magically qualifies one for any federal appointment available. The Bush administration just needs find a horse association for the guy to run for a couple weeks. . .
posted by amberglow at 9:56 PM on September 5, 2005

has any Chief Justice had less realworld and legal experience?

Earl Warren. He'd never been a judge at all prior to his appointment as CJ. DA and governor of CA, but never a judge.

Lotsa good reasons to not like Roberts, but this isn't a real one.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:55 PM on September 5, 2005

Unfortunately for us lefties, Bush has one helluva club with Scalia in the background. A "No Roberts --> Scalia" threat would scare the cr*p out of me.

But what are the chances that Roberts is in the Opus Dei cult? Is OD just worthy of a Eco storyline or are they an actual force in our society (OD members include Bork, Scalia, Thomas, Brownback, Santorum, Kudlow, Novakula, Noonan)...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:19 PM on September 5, 2005

Earl Warren. He'd never been a judge at all prior to his appointment as CJ. DA and governor of CA, but never a judge.

Being DA and Governor is certainly realworld and legal experience outside Washington, ROU. Warren didn't spend his entire adult life in DC working for one political party.

Heywood, i think the Federalist Society has much more influence.
posted by amberglow at 6:08 AM on September 6, 2005

In a few days, the electorate will come to realize the primary blame for Katrina relief/evacuation plans is with the Governor and Mayor, and any impact on Bush's popularity will be gone. In fact, there's an excellent chance that once people realize what has happened, Bush will look like an even better leader: the locals were incompetent, and the feds got in there very quickly once they failed.

I have had it wrong all along. PP isn't a right-winger; he's actually a monarchist. Old King George can never be wrong, he's our king! And when it might appear that he's wrong, we'll change the facts to support our conclusion. Long live the King!
posted by psmealey at 6:10 AM on September 6, 2005

Think about it. Do people really want a Supreme Court Justice who believes:

* that the Federal Government has limited or no authority to enact laws in regard to New Deal and Great Society initiatives like Social Security, Medicare, and the Fair Labor Act;
* that there is no "Right to Privacy" guaranteeing a woman's right to buy contraceptives or obtain an abortion if she needs it;
* that the Federal Government should not be in the business of ensuring that women are paid the same as men;
* that the Federal Government cannot use the Commerce Clause to enforce environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts;
* and that the Federal Government has the right to jail people without charging them with a crime.
posted by amberglow at 6:46 AM on September 6, 2005

He's doing this to try and distract people from his incompetence with Katrina. I

VS his demonstrated competency at:
1) His academic career
2) His military career
3) The Businesses he ran
4) The running of the nation up to Sept 10th 2001
5) Stellar performance on Sept 11th 2001
6) The management of the Iraq conflict
7) Signing off on the excellent job Congress has done with the management of the public purse

On and on.


Back to Roberts - It looks to me like he'll be able to get on the court before the switching about of deck chairs on the Titanic, better for Bush to go for a choice that they have been shopping about VS some new guy. Plus, the people who ran about shouting 'pheer Gonzolas' look silly at this point.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:44 AM on September 6, 2005

So, dream on about your fictional loss in popularity.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:07 AM PST on September 5 [!]


Huh. Guess the drop in polls before the hurricane did not exist.

Thank you for clearing that up. You DO work hard for the money you get paid to post here.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:49 AM on September 6, 2005

Jon-O: metastalker.com is an entirely different website, dude. Please don't sweat me so hard, okay?
posted by esquire at 8:03 PM on September 7, 2005