Bush tabs Judge Roberts - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Drbio · 07-19-2005, 11:50 PM

Excellent pick by Bush. The man has extensive qualifications and was confirmed to the Court of Appeals by the Senate 99-0 in the past. Damn fine pick by YOUR President!

Your thoughts?

Drbio · 07-20-2005, 12:26 AM

dude1394 · 07-20-2005, 07:07 AM

Certainly the conservative base seems to like him a lot and I don't really follow judges enough to have anohte opinion. Bush did a few things here that I liked.
1. Got him introduced to the american people without having anyone hear ted kennedy babble on about him first.
2. Intro'd him as well without giving the msm time to editorialize much. Except NYTImes still had a semi-negative editorial ready for whomever was selected.
3. WashingtonPost (as usual) provides a more serious editorial today.
4. Bush seems to have done what he said he would do, which is one of his greatest assetts as a politician.

Thumbs-up.

Mavdog · 07-20-2005, 07:21 AM

An experienced attorney, a not very experienced judge.

Roberts has the educational credentials, seems to be a very solid person.

I would have preferred to see a female to replace the one who is leaving, the court has a sufficient number of anglo males.

dude1394 · 07-20-2005, 07:49 AM

Dubya may help you out with that next time. Priscialla Owen or Brown might fit. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Drbio · 07-20-2005, 08:27 AM

The next Associate Justice will be a woman. And she will be nominated within a month of Roberts confirmation.

jacktruth · 07-20-2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Mavdog
An experienced attorney, a not very experienced judge.

Roberts has the educational credentials, seems to be a very solid person.

I would have preferred to see a female to replace the one who is leaving, the court has a sufficient number of anglo males.

It's not important what the court looks LIKE.
It's important what the court looks TO.

-Scott Wilder

Mavdog · 07-20-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Drbio
The next Associate Justice will be a woman. And she will be nominated within a month of Roberts confirmation.

that would be very difficult in that there is currently no vacancy to be nominated for, and the next vacancy will most likely not be for an associate but for Chief Justice...

Could the Chief Justice be vacant soon? It seems that Rehnquist isn't ready to leave, as long as his health allows (a question for sure) he wants to stay. It is improbable that he stays for 3 years tho, and Bush will likely get to send a second nomination before his term ends.

chumdawg · 07-20-2005, 12:26 PM

Mavdog, won't the next Chief Justice come from the ranks of the Associate Justices? (Probably Thomas?) Thereby creating a vacancy for another Associate.

Interesting conjecture, Doc. Just a hunch?

Back on topic, I was proud of my President last night. Bush lays down for no one.

jacktruth · 07-20-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: chumdawg
Mavdog, won't the next Chief Justice come from the ranks of the Associate Justices? (Probably Thomas?) Thereby creating a vacancy for another Associate.

Interesting conjecture, Doc. Just a hunch?

Back on topic, I was proud of my President last night. Bush lays down for no one.

The problem with putting an existing justice as chief is that it would mean two hearings: one for the new justice, and one to move a justice to chief. There are some questions if they want to drag out another Thomas hearing.

Mavdog · 07-20-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: chumdawg
Mavdog, won't the next Chief Justice come from the ranks of the Associate Justices? (Probably Thomas?) Thereby creating a vacancy for another Associate.

that is an option, promoting an existing member to the position of Chief Justice, or the pres can nominate a Chief Justice who isn't currently on the court. Rehnquist was an associate elevated to Chief justice, but Warren was Chief without ever serving as an Associate.

Drbio · 07-20-2005, 02:50 PM

The next Chief will come from the ranks of current justices. I doubt that a newbie would be placed. Rehnquist will announce his retirement after Bush gets his man through the process and in place. I would expect Thomas to be a candidate for Chief and Owens to be nominated for associate despite mavdogs ramblings.

It is a hunch on my part mostly, but one rooted in discussion with some local politicians. Those same politicians are well connected to the western white house though. They've been right more often than not. It is an interesting thought. Stay tuned.

Drbio · 07-20-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

that would be very difficult in that there is currently no vacancy to be nominated for

idiot. Did you not pick up the CLEAR inference like everyone else?

Mavdog · 07-20-2005, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Drbio
The next Chief will come from the ranks of current justices. I doubt that a newbie would be placed. Rehnquist will announce his retirement after Bush gets his man through the process and in place. I would expect Thomas to be a candidate for Chief and Owens to be nominated for associate despite mavdogs ramblings.

Thomas will be one of the most, if not THE most, difficult nominees to be approved when (and that is not anytime soon IMO) Rehnquist resigns. As was correctly pointed out by jack, nominating an existing associate would entail a total of 3 confirmation hearings rather than just 2 if a new justice was nominated as Chief.

Owens will not be nominated to be a SC Justice, and correctly so. Recall that when she and Gonzalez were both on the Texas SC, Gonzalez was very critical of many of her poorly thought out opinions.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that would be very difficult in that there is currently no vacancy to be nominated for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

idiot. Did you not pick up the CLEAR inference like everyone else?

"inference"???? your statement was clearly a fine example of being an "idiot" as it was flat out wrong.

Drbio · 07-20-2005, 04:05 PM

You are clearly the most f'in ignorant poster in this forum.

Mavdog · 07-20-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Drbio
You are clearly the most f'in ignorant poster in this forum.

so predictable.
yawn

Drbio · 07-20-2005, 04:24 PM

Yawn indeed. Who didn't see mavdorks response coming a 100 miles away?

Mavdog · 07-20-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Drbio
Yawn indeed. Who didn't see mavdorks response coming a 100 miles away?

I guess anyone who, like I did, saw your "idiot" mistake.

BirdReincarnation41 · 07-21-2005, 01:20 AM

You don't want another fickle woman on the court, believe me...

Sandra Day O'Conner was a disgrace who allowed abortion and racial preferences to go on.

She is a traitor to American liberty.

Only fascism under my command will save you and yours...[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

Drbio · 07-21-2005, 09:06 AM

God mavdork....you are such a tard.

dude1394 · 07-24-2005, 11:42 AM

What a joke...John Kerry says that all of Judge Roberts attorney-client documentation should be...

Quote:

The committee has yet to make a request. But some Democrats, including Sen.
John Kerry of Massachusetts, have urged the White House to release such documents "in their entirety."

I think Roberts should do it the same way Kerry's military records were released... After the election and about oh''''' a year or so after he has said he's already done it. And then he should release it to only 2 or 3 supportive senators. They will then report on whether there is anything thing.

What a tool.