What Would You Ask Supreme Court Nominee Judge John Roberts?
July 29, 2005 6:14 PM   Subscribe

posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:15 PM on July 29, 2005

Step down?

Become a real christian instead of a faux one?

Work in a soup kitchen for the rest of his life?
posted by mk1gti at 6:27 PM on July 29, 2005

If a hen and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many eggs will five hens lay in 6 days?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:27 PM on July 29, 2005

something about those plaid pants?
posted by matteo at 6:34 PM on July 29, 2005

Do you think the Supreme Court is the proper place to decide Presidential Elections? Why did you volunteer your services to Bush in Florida in 2000, and help them with their arguments before the Supreme Court? Would you recuse yourself from any cases involving Bush, given that you helped him win the Supreme Court case? Why did you uphold the conviction of a little girl handcuffed for eating a single french fry in the DC Metro? Why did you lie about being a member of the Federalist Society, when you in fact were more than just a regular member, and even on their steering committee? What in your employment history has prepared you for judging on the most important cases in the country, from now until you die? What experiences have you had beyond working in DC for politicians and lobbyists? Are Corp interests more important than citizen's interests? Are Corp. rights more important than citizen's rights? Are Politicians more important than citizens? How did you feel when you told Coretta Scott King you were cutting funding for the MLK Center? And i'd ask about this stuff: ...On issues involving civil rights, according to the Justice Department records, Roberts once defended the constitutionality of proposed legislation to restrict the ability of federal courts to order busing to desegregate schools.
In December 1981, according to the New York Times, the United States Commission on Civil Rights issued a report defending affirmative action as a way to fight discrimination. Judge Roberts wrote a tough critique, saying the "obvious reason" affirmative action programs had failed was that they "required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates." ...

posted by amberglow at 6:43 PM on July 29, 2005

Oh, and have you ever hired an illegal alien as nanny?

Do you believe that equal rights includes the rights for same sex couples to marry? If not, why not?
posted by amberglow at 6:47 PM on July 29, 2005

EB hacked amberglow's account

posted by matteo at 6:54 PM on July 29, 2005

I'd ask him "What the hell is up with the Church of the Subgenious? (VERY NSFW!!!)"

naw, seriously though. i'd ask him why we should confirm him and not diana ross.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:54 PM on July 29, 2005

Nothing. He's a lock. Why bother? [Unless he molests small children as a hobby - molesting liberals, unless they are children, doesn't matter.]
posted by caddis at 7:00 PM on July 29, 2005

go amberglow, *smokin hot*
posted by mk1gti at 7:00 PM on July 29, 2005

"Why don't you fire the fag who does your hair?"
posted by Balisong at 7:03 PM on July 29, 2005

Well, this is more important than anything else--this guy will be denying me rights for the next 30 years or more. And it was the swing vote, so will tip the court over to the right. It really is vitally important, and he's a terrible nominee (unless you're a corporation or in the Executive branch).

i'd ask about all this stuff too
posted by amberglow at 7:16 PM on July 29, 2005

I agree.
The Supreme Court choices is what I based my vote on for president.

We lost.
posted by Balisong at 7:22 PM on July 29, 2005


The things that are bothering you in your personal life have nothing to do with politics.

Why don't you find out what's really bother you, and quit looking for something outside yourself to blame.

You don't know this man. He's not responsible for the pain in your life.

Something else is. Look at your personal relationships. Consider your relationship with God. This might be a more fruitful way of finding your way out of anger and hatred.
posted by Shouting at 7:39 PM on July 29, 2005

Please ignore the troll.


I'd ask him how much judicial experience he thinks is necessary to be on the Supreme Court. Two fucking years? Seriously?

Filibuster city, I Hope.
posted by delmoi at 7:49 PM on July 29, 2005

Can a Starbucks napkin save the Democratic Party?
posted by jimmy at 7:51 PM on July 29, 2005


I'd ask him how he'd have ruled on "Gore v Bush" and (if in favor) ask him to defend it on a legal basis.

He would be obliged to answer. He can't really weasle out like most right-wing nominees by bleating that he may be called to rule on it.

Since no serious legal scholar of any stripe has ever stepped forward to defend it on legal grounds, it'd be his big chance to exhibit his impartial judicial wisdom.
posted by RavinDave at 8:12 PM on July 29, 2005

'Who's your daddy?" Seriously, I think that'll cover it.
posted by lilboo at 8:21 PM on July 29, 2005

My question to Roberts: Yes or no: when the issue comes to the Supreme Court, will you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

And leave Amberglow the hell alone. I'm with ya sister.
posted by Jade5454 at 8:39 PM on July 29, 2005

1.) Judge Roberts, what's your take on a grown man who names his weblog, and I quote, 'Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars'? What, to you, does it suggest beyond a tendency to lecture others in a completely shallow yet utterly condescending manner in public fora?

2.) What's your favorite flavor of ice-cream? Does it taste anything like shut-the-fuck-up-shouting-berry or answer-the-question-or-ignore-the-thread-if-you-don't-like-it-mallow?

3.) If a strict constructionist farts and it travels across state lines faster than the speed of stupid, does it violate the precedent established in Dingle v. Berry?
posted by joe lisboa at 8:57 PM on July 29, 2005

Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars is a great name for a weblog.

Probably the best one out there.

My question for Judge Roberts:

Name your favorite Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars.
posted by Shouting at 9:00 PM on July 29, 2005

Shouting: message from God: We need to talk. Personally. There is only one way to do this. You need to come see me. Now. I'll leave the method up to you.
posted by mk1gti at 9:18 PM on July 29, 2005

"Since no serious legal scholar of any stripe has ever stepped forward to defend it (Gore v Bush) on legal grounds..."

The Supreme Court justices count as "legal scholars" to the best of my knowledge.

And re: Roberts -- I just want to know that he will uphold the United States Constitution and place it above all other laws.
posted by davidmsc at 9:38 PM on July 29, 2005

"The Supreme Court justices count as "legal scholars" to the best of my knowledge."

There was a time when they were.

The point, of course, still stands.

No serious scholar has went on record with a defense based on objective legal standards. Though plenty on the right love the result, not a single one has uttered the slightest word of admiration for it based on the wise and proper application of constitutional law. They know it was a frantic partisan bastardization that would never have been proffered if it had benefitted Gore instead of Bush.

But then, you know that too.
posted by RavinDave at 9:54 PM on July 29, 2005

And re: Roberts -- I just want to know that he will uphold the United States Constitution and place it above all other laws.

Did you miss his conversation with Durbin?--...Professor Turley cited unnamed sources saying that Judge Roberts had told Mr. Durbin he would recuse himself from cases involving abortion, the death penalty or other subjects where Catholic teaching and civil law can clash. ...
posted by amberglow at 10:05 PM on July 29, 2005

I'd ask him how he'd have ruled on "Gore v Bush" and (if in favor) ask him to defend it on a legal basis.

Roberts helped prepair legal breifs and did legal work in flordia on behalf of the shrub.
posted by delmoi at 10:19 PM on July 29, 2005

1. What's your home address?
2. What time to you usually go to sleep?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:52 PM on July 29, 2005

I would ask him if, given his past contention that Congress has the power to limit to Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction on grounds including (but presumably not limited to) school prayer and abortion, whether or not he believes that Marbury v. Madison was decided erroneously, and if the entire concept of judicial review is unconstitutional.

Also, for his personal philosohpy regarding stare decisis (and just for kicks, what he thinks of Specter's "superprecedents."
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 10:53 PM on July 29, 2005

Rather not unconstitutional, but circumventable by Congress.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 10:58 PM on July 29, 2005

I'm kind of on the fence about his putative trollishness; I'm quite convinced his opinions, however repugnant to me, are genuine, which pushes me towards the non-troll side, but the aggressive way in which he expresses them, particularly the nasty attacks on amberglow, push in the other direction. Perhaps this quote from his blog gives us a hint:

In the formative years of weblogging, you could count on liberals and conservatives to engage in comments battles that continued for days. Nowadays, it seems as though only the satire websites, like BlameBush! and Iowahawk produce those endless comment battles… and these battles are in jest. Occasionally, some dufus like howie doesn’t get the idea of satire at all, but he’s a rarity. Comment debate on the 2Blowhards site is so polite that it’s almost an embarassment. The neo-neocon site has even calmed down, now that Ho Chi Minh and I have stopped slugging it out. Have we all gotten tired of calling one another names?

As for his sad life: please, give me a fucking break. Nobody's ever inquired what made poor 111 the way he was; nobody asks what ParisParamus is suffering that makes him so difficult. We've all got our sob stories. That's completely irrelevant to whether he's behaving in a way MeFi should put up with.
posted by languagehat at 6:08 AM on July 30, 2005

Whoa, I didn't mean to post that here! Damn non-preview! Administrator, please obliviate me!
posted by languagehat at 6:09 AM on July 30, 2005

Something else is. Look at your personal relationships. Consider your relationship with God. This might be a more fruitful way of finding your way out of anger and hatred.
posted by Shouting at 7:39 PM PST on July 29

That is bar fucking none the gayest post of all time.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:33 AM on July 30, 2005

I should probably clarify that: amberglow's relationship with great Cthulhu has nothing to do with the facts surrounding the Robert's nomination, and Shouting's lame posts are just another attempt at derailment and obfuscation, because what he knows about the world is roughly equivalent to that of, say, a naked mole rat.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:40 AM on July 30, 2005

What is your name?

What...is your favorite color?

What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:44 AM on July 30, 2005

African or European?
posted by longbaugh at 9:18 AM on July 30, 2005

Do you like movies about gladiators?
posted by SisterHavana at 11:04 AM on July 30, 2005

Do the chickens have large talons?
posted by caddis at 11:31 AM on July 30, 2005

You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down and you see a hapless toad hopping toward you. You reach down, you flip the toad over on its back. The toad lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't, not without your help, but you're not helping. Why is that, Judge Roberts?
posted by homunculus at 11:55 AM on July 30, 2005

Very well said. Why is Judge Roberts letting that poor toad lie in the desert when he could help it. Why is Souter? Why are the other so-called justices? Could it be they are not justices at all, but apologists and enablers for despotism?
posted by mk1gti at 12:41 PM on July 30, 2005

rome or florence?
posted by brandz at 7:12 PM on July 31, 2005

blanche or dorothy?
posted by amberglow at 9:33 PM on July 31, 2005

WaPo yesterday: ... new documents released by the National Archives from Roberts's tenure as a senior adviser to the attorney general during the Reagan administration make clear that he was deeply skeptical of the court's recognition of a citizen's fundamental "right to privacy" -- the legal concept that underpinned its historic 1973 decision upholding a right to abortion.
Although the documents do not spell out Roberts's personal views on abortion, they add to previously released documents suggesting that he had more in common with those who dissented from the court's reliance on "fundamental rights" than he did with the rulings of its majority.
Roberts wrote in his statement to the committee that the proper exercise of the judicial role "in our constitutional system requires a degree of institutional and personal modesty and humility" and said it is "not part of the judicial function to make the law."...

posted by amberglow at 6:22 AM on August 4, 2005

everyday it's something new: AP: Roberts Failed to Disclose Lobbyist Work
posted by amberglow at 10:13 PM on August 4, 2005

The Bush administration on Friday formally rejected a Democratic request for documents from the years Judge John G. Roberts Jr. served as deputy solicitor general, setting up a potential confrontation over material Democrats say is essential to a thorough examination of Mr. Roberts's Supreme Court nomination.
In a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said it would withhold information sought by Democrats related to the legal advice Mr. Roberts gave under the first President Bush, as he helped develop the government's legal position on a variety of cases from 1989 to 1993. ...
posted by amberglow at 12:15 PM on August 6, 2005

AP: Conservative Group Pulls Roberts Support --A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it was withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.

The group, Public Advocate of the United States, is one of the first conservative organizations to announce anything but support for the judge

Eugene Delgaudio, the president of the group, said in an interview that he hopes his stance will prod others. ...

posted by amberglow at 5:07 PM on August 9, 2005

John G. Roberts Jr. is out of the closet. ... --...The spectacle of conservative groups and the White House rushing to assure their constituencies that Roberts is not -- really and truly -- a tolerant man is both repulsive and absurd. In the end, this tethering of conservatism to the lost cause of homophobia will earn the rebuke of history. In the meantime, though, it puts Roberts on the spot. He might assert that he has been cruelly mischaracterized and, for benefit of career, renounce the work he had once done. But more likely his pro bono work speaks for itself. Until he says otherwise, on gay rights, he's out of the closet.
posted by amberglow at 5:17 PM on August 9, 2005

about how they don't vet: Roberts Papers Being Delayed-Bush Aides Screen Pages for Surprises(WaPo) ...Before Roberts's July 19 selection by President Bush, there was no comprehensive effort to examine the voluminous paper trail from his previous tours as an important legal and political hand under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, administration officials said. ...
posted by amberglow at 5:19 AM on August 10, 2005

« Older "Prince of Pot" Arrested   |   News media Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments