« Moved the goalposts, eh? Is that a crime? | Main | The Hits Just Keep On Coming »

July 21, 2005


Another interesting comment in the SF Chronicle today from someone about Roberts' reputed excellence in appellate argument. In order to be an excellent appellate advocate, one must be able to HEAR ones opponent's arguments, to understand them, as a prerequisite to taking them apart and refuting them. He apparently has this capacity. Not much, but again, more than Scalia.

Support for Mimikatz' point from the Rosen article:

Judge Roberts takes pride in representing both sides of the political spectrum. He delighted environmental groups by convincing the Supreme Court that a freeze on development in an unspoiled part of Lake Tahoe didn't violate the private property rights of the affected landowners. He has argued for and against the constitutionality of affirmative action. For Mr. Roberts, the ability to "argue a case round or argue it flat," as the lawyers say, is a point of pride.

As both an appellate lawyer and an appellate judge, he earned the reputation of a legal craftsman who didn't come to cases with preconceived grand theories, but took positions based on the arguments and legal materials in each case.

I think the Democratic Senators ought to use Bush v. Gore as a real test of his thought processes. He can't say that he shouldn't comment on it because it has no precedent status (right?) and that same fact situation will certainly never come up again in that same way.

I assume he would support the decision and how he justified that would be a great look into his judicial reasoning. If he doesn't support it, life might get even more interesting.

In any case, I think it's high time we use Bush v Gore to our advantage.

I have to believe he's support the decision; he was on the Bush legal team in Florida.

he was on the Bush legal team in Florida [so he would support the majority decision in Bush v Gore]

I'm not so sure about that. Being on the legal team in FL and supporting the decision of the SCOTUS aren't the same thing. Kainah's point is a really great one; that's the kind of question which should really make someone with a true 'judicial temperament' squirm: that was a real bullshit opinion. He probably won't answer the question.

Fine post, BTW. Anger and resentment really are so central to the so-called conservative movement.

There were serious right-wingers trying to get compensation for the Tahoe landowners. I think that the Pacific legal foundation was behind it at one point.

I heard something about a NYT article which detailed all the work the Bushies did (well over a year) to convince fundies that Roberts was the guy. If it took that long, he doesn't sound much like a Scalia clone, or worse than Scalia. He seems like he may be reasonable and at least somewhat consistent. Not someone who is on our side, but better than Scalia or Thomas.

The article also mentioned that the big Catholic leader working with the administation bonded with Roberts because they both love the opera. Yeah, I'm sure that would go over well with the Eagle Forum set.

Opera? Well that explains why he was nominated. Apparently you need to be an opera fan to be on the court; the justices actually go to the opera together a couple times a year, and Scalia, Rehnquist and Ginsberg are all huge opera fans.

Scalia, Rehnquist and Ginsberg are all huge opera fans.

Well, operetta (which is sort of like generic Velveeta) in Rehnquist's case.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I'm relieved Bush didn't nominate some evangelical Christian type. There may be valid concern about the future of Roe v Wade, but otherwise I'm hoping he'll keep the wall between church and state intact. Catholics don't base everything on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad