Bush's Supreme Court Nomination

Yeah. I think we're screwed.

[quote:e95ebf8bcc="koma"][quote:e95ebf8bcc]"Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct."[/quote:e95ebf8bcc][/quote:e95ebf8bcc]

They are entitled to be hostile to it, as far as their own private personal attitudes are concerned. They are even entitled to be hostile to it to the extent of (peacefully) protesting it in the street, if they wish. They are entitled not to practise it themselves. But what they are not entitled to do, in my opinion, is to deny equal civil rights to their fellow citizens because of their own personal prejudices.

[quote:e95ebf8bcc="koma"]While I appreciate the article (as always :) ), I have to say that it didn't strike me as "he's on our team now" or anything like that.[/quote:e95ebf8bcc]

Oh, yeah, I definitely didn't mean to suggest that. And I think most gay rights activists are reacting in the same way as you (though of course the anti-gay crew are now anxious about him); you can see their reactions here:

[quote:e95ebf8bcc="www.advocate.com"]August 05, 2005

[b:e95ebf8bcc]Activists react to Roberts's support for gay rights[/b:e95ebf8bcc]

Immediately following an August 4 [i:e95ebf8bcc]Los Angeles Times[/i:e95ebf8bcc] story in which John Roberts, Bush's pick to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, was revealed to have worked behind the scenes to help overturn an antigay Colorado constitutional amendment in 1996, several gay leaders expressed caution. While working with Washington, D.C., law firm Hogan and Hartson, Roberts did pro bono work for the team of gay activists and attorneys who convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Amendment 2, a voter-approved law that prohibited any legal protections for gays and lesbians in Colorado.

But just because Roberts was closely involved doesn't mean gays and lesbians should be celebrating. "We're going to continue to call for the release of more information about his record, and we're going to continue to call for vigorous confirmation hearings," Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, told Advocate.com. "I don't think we have an answer yet as to what John Roberts's constitutional philosophies are."

"Judge Roberts's involvement in [the case, known as Romer v. Evans] is noteworthy, but his participation adds little to our understanding of how he would vote on the court," added Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese. "The stakes are too high for guessing games over Judge Roberts's stance."

Those lobbying for the religious right were quick to express doubts about Roberts, whom they had been touting as a great pick for the Supreme Court job. Mat Staver, president of the antigay conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, told the Baptist Press that Roberts's involvement in the gay rights case is "something to certainly be concerned about. We need more information to find out the facts behind what Judge Roberts did when he was working on the case. But if in fact the story is true, it is clearly concerning because, according to the story, Judge Roberts did not hesitate to get involved to work on this case pro bono.... If in fact he did this, this would be contrary to everything I've read about him thus far. This was a state constitutional amendment passed by the people. For the court to strike that down, I felt, was judicial activism."

Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity said he now has "some" doubts about Roberts. "It's the first sign I've seen where his conservative judicial philosophy...may not be as solid as what I thought," Hannity said on his radio program.[/quote:e95ebf8bcc]

So in short... there's going to be plenty of pressure put on him to say that he never wanted to help those nasty queers, and that he'll never do it again in the future - honest Injun. :roll:

[quote:7e502691f5="Claudia"][quote:7e502691f5="koma"][quote:7e502691f5]"Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct."[/quote:7e502691f5][/quote:7e502691f5]

They are entitled to be hostile to it, as far as their own private personal attitudes are concerned. They are even entitled to be hostile to it to the extent of (peacefully) protesting it in the street, if they wish. They are entitled not to practise it themselves. But what they are not entitled to do, in my opinion, is to deny equal civil rights to their fellow citizens because of their own personal prejudices.[/quote:7e502691f5]

That is true, of course, but I didn't like Mr. Scalia's wording of it. Hostility, to me, is an open, violent contempt for something. It reminds me of hostile crowds lynching black people, among other things. Does the law provide citizens with freedom of speech/thought? Sure. But I would have preferred he said something like, "Coloradans are entitled to disagree with homosexual conduct...".

My handy dictionary says that hostility is antagonistic, so Scalia's written, legal dissent seems to support actions that would antagonize (i.e. attack or provoke) gay people. You mentioned peaceful protest, but in this regard hostility seems to be the opposite of peace. I realise it's semantics, but in fact it runs much deeper.

With Scalia's track record, I really wasn't [i:7e502691f5]that[/i:7e502691f5] surprised by his quote. :roll: But ask him if I am entitled to be hostile towards Christianity, or George Bush, and I'm sure you'd receive a vastly different response with a better choice of words.

[quote:219dc8f092="Doylerulz"]I'm going to officially start looking for real-estate in Canada. I hear Vancouver is nice. Any suggestions?[/quote:219dc8f092]
Toronto :wink:

Toronto sounds good too. Season tickets to Mapleleafs games! :D

Well there might be some hope...

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/08/04/2

[quote:3c947c5e4c]Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts offered his pro bono services to the gay rights advocates fighting Colorado's Amendment 2 nearly 10 years ago, the Los Angeles Times reported on Thursday.

According to the Times, the team of lawyers preparing to argue Romer v. Evans before the U.S. Supreme Court in October of 1995 turned for help to the Washington law firm of Hogan & Hartson. Lead counsel Jean Dubofsky recalled Roberts as one of several attorneys at the firm who prepped her on her Supreme Court appearance. Roberts urged her to review the lower court record, and played the role of a Scalia-like justice during a practice session.

"John Roberts ... was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," Dubofsky told the Times. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Accepting a pro bono assignment is generally up to an individual lawyer. Walter A. Smith Jr., head of Hogan & Hartson's pro bono division at the time, recalled that Roberts seemed happy to take on the gay rights case. "He said 'Let's do it,'" Smith told the Times. "And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

In Romer v. Evans, the high court reviewed a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that struck an amendment outlawing gay rights measures throughout the state. Gay rights activists were concerned when the court accepted the case, given the possibility that the justices might reverse the decision from the Colorado court and create a new anti-gay precedent. Instead, in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the 6-3 court handed down what was then the most powerful gay rights decision in the court's history.

The issue in Romer was more than a matter of equal protection for gay men and women. The Colorado amendment had singled out a group of people for no apparent reason, and then deprived them in advance of access to much of the political process.

According to the legal history "Courting Justice," by Deb Price and Joyce Murdoch, Kennedy and the four liberal justices seemed appalled by the unprecedented scope of the amendment during oral arguments. Even Justice O'Connor found a clear legal path to cast the sixth vote.

Seen in this context, Roberts' guidance does not translate directly to a leaning in favor of gay rights in other contexts. But it does suggest, first, that he is not a knee-jerk homophobe, and, second, that he would apply constitutional principles in gay cases without being distracted by the issue of gayness itself.

Reacting cautiously to the Times article, Lambda Legal called the news "one more piece that will be added to the puzzle of vetting John Roberts." The Human Rights Campaign, in turn, said Roberts' role in Romer was "noteworthy," but "adds little to our understanding of how he would vote on the court." [/quote:3c947c5e4c]

^ lol.... I just posted a long post about that above!

^^ Um... yes. Note to self: Read previous posts before posting so as to not look like an arrogant know-it-all and illeterate idiot all at the same time :oops:

[quote:b3b232caec="Ronijn"]^^ Um... yes. Note to self: Read previous posts before posting so as to not look like an arrogant know-it-all and illeterate idiot all at the same time :oops:[/quote:b3b232caec]

Aww... no you didn't! I thought it was cool someone else had noticed the story!

[b:bc349d04e8]Citing gay case, group opposes Roberts[/b:bc349d04e8]
[i:bc349d04e8]Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 / 04:26 PM[/i:bc349d04e8]

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/08/09/4

WASHINGTON -- 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.

"I know that others feel the same way. I know they believe as I do. They're just not going to act," the 50-year-old Northern Virginia man said. "But once I've done it, then they can't claim that no one's opposing Roberts."

"We can't take our limited resources and put it toward a candidate who is not a strict constructionist when we were told he is," Delgaudio said.

The stance by his group, which describes itself as a pro-family organization, puts it in opposition to conservative groups that have endorsed Roberts. A number of liberal groups already oppose President Bush's high court nominee.

Delgaudio said his group had planned to send out more than 1 million pieces of direct mail for Roberts, as well as working telephones, polling and conducting petition drives.

But now, "canceling our mail campaign is the least we can do," he said. He said he would poll his group to see if members want him to be neutral, spend money to oppose Roberts or reinstate support.

This is not the first time Delgaudio has gone up against the Bush administration. He criticized Vice President Dick Cheney last year after the vice president, when asked about gay marriage, said, "Freedom means freedom for everyone."

Delgaudio said then: "'Freedom' is not embracing perversion."

The Colorado gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.

Gay rights groups sued, and the measure was declared unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

Roberts' role in the case included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay-rights plaintiffs.

Arguments that Roberts' work on the case doesn't equal support for gay rights doesn't wash with Delgaudio. "Nobody's forced to help your opponents," he said. "I can't believe that a senior attorney would voluntarily help somebody he doesn't agree with. I don't believe it. It's not credible."

Other conservative groups, including the Traditional Values Coalition and Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, are still supporting Roberts.

"We support President Bush and his choice for the Supreme Court, John Roberts," said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition.

Other groups also are taking public stands on Roberts' candidacy.

NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to start running television ads opposing Roberts on Wednesday, and other abortion rights groups including the National Organization for Women, the National Abortion Federation and the Feminist Majority all have announced their opposition to Roberts.

The conservative Progress for America is launching a counteroffensive against NARAL's ads, spending $300,000 for one week's worth of ads on broadcast television in Maine and Rhode Island and on national cable television networks. The ads criticize NARAL's ads, calling them "a desperate and false attack -- recklessly distorting Judge Roberts' record."

The National Association of Manufacturers, led by Republican John Engler, is expected to announce an endorsement of Roberts on Wednesday.

^ *Groan*.... well, it's exactly what I predicted.

[quote:97061b5c23]The stance by his group, which describes itself as a pro-family organization[/quote:97061b5c23]

Reminds me of that Jon Stewart quote... I don't have it exactly, but it's something along the lines of "Whenever an organisation has 'family' in the title, you know it means they're angry about something" :twisted:

[quote:97061b5c23]Delgaudio said then: "'Freedom' is not embracing perversion."[/quote:97061b5c23]

Erm... well actually, it is, Delgaudio. Not perversion as in rape or child abuse.... because that's infringing somebody *else's* freedom.... but I'm afraid the word 'freedom' does involve allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions about what they do in their own bedrooms without penalising them, irrespective of whether you personally think it's 'perversion' or not. :roll:

You cannot say "freedom means it's only OK to do the things I think it's OK to do". :roll: If you're that uncomfortable with the *implications* of freedom, then maybe you shouldn't be using the word - or claiming to support the concept - in the first place.

^^ Yup I think you are. Young, white, Catholic uber-conservative republican who replacing a swing vote woman and who will probably be sitting on the bench for the next 30 years :(

Hate to say it but just another reason I'm thankful I'm Canadian.

I know that I'm overly prone to conspiracy theories, but does anyone else think that some conservatives might act like they're opposed to Roberts just so liberals feel more comfortable with/less opposed to him?

Kind of like taking a WAY right position just to make Roberts appear more moderate?

I just can't get over the stuff he did for the Reagan administration.

Unfortunatley, conspiracy theories are usually justified with this administration. I think they'll use the right-wing resistance to Roberts to mollify Democrats and make it seem like they've nominated someone who is "centrist" rather than a right-wing nut job.

An excellent (albeit lengthy) article about how the gay rights movement will be profoundly shaped by the Supreme Court in the near future:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/11/MNGVCE66GN1....

[quote:879e7bcfab][b:879e7bcfab]GAY ISSUES DESTINED FOR TOP COURT
Activists agree Justice Roberts would be pivotal in same-sex marriage cases[/b:879e7bcfab]

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Washington -- Abortion may dominate next month's Senate hearings on whether to confirm John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, but gay rights is the stealth issue.

Democrats aren't as eager to push for same-sex marriage as they are to protect abortion, but there is little question that the leading edge of civil rights law involves lesbians and gays rather than more settled questions of gender and racial equality.

Over the next decade or more -- and if confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts could be on the court for 30 years -- activists on both sides expect the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act denying homosexuals federal benefits conferred by marriage and the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays and lesbians in the military.

Several such cases already are moving through lower courts, though they may be several years away from the Supreme Court.

"I don't think there's any question" such cases ultimately will come before the Supreme Court, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading social conservative group, who supports President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the court.

Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay advocacy group, agreed. "Whoever gets appointed is going to be on the court for a long time, and eventually, these issues are going to reach the Supreme Court," Davidson said.

Although the stakes are high, both sides are downplaying the issue for strategic reasons.

Some gay leaders warn against making gay issues a focus of the confirmation hearings, fearing such a move could backfire.

Very few Democratic senators support same-sex marriage, and the public remains largely opposed to the idea. Activists are advising the Senate Democrats to address the issue indirectly under the rubric of a constitutional right to privacy.

Privacy rights underpin not only the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision permitting abortion but also the landmark 2003 Lawrence vs. Texas decision that stuck down state sodomy laws.

Religious conservatives want to avoid imposing a litmus test on gay rights so that liberals cannot demand one on abortion. Bush himself has carefully avoided doing so.

"We're not setting litmus tests; it's the other side doing that," said Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council.

Still, he added, "I would say that we would not want a candidate to say they considered Lawrence vs. Texas to be settled law or beyond the scope of review on constitutional grounds."

The sensitivity of the gay rights issue became clear last week with the revelation that Roberts provided free legal advice for gay plaintiffs on a groundbreaking 1996 Supreme Court case, Romer vs. Evans, which struck down a Colorado ballot initiative banning antidiscrimination laws for gays.

The work sparked momentary alarm among religious conservatives that Roberts could harbor secret sympathies.

Most religious conservatives said they had been assured that Roberts would be reluctant as a judge to overturn the will of voters or legislators despite his work on Romer, although a Virginia group, Public Advocate of the United States, said Tuesday it would oppose his nomination. Gay rights groups say his work on the case does nothing to reassure them.

Same-sex marriage was a central cultural issue in the 2004 presidential campaign after the Massachusetts high court made that state the first ever to allow such unions. For religious conservatives, the ruling epitomized activist judges imposing their own moral code and overriding legislatures and voters.

"You had four members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who suddenly found a right to same-sex marriage in the oldest written constitution still enforced in the world," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America. "That is a prime example of what we mean by judicial activism."

The decision became a rallying cry for voter mobilization drives that helped win re-election for Bush -- who denounced the ruling and promised to nominate conservative judges. It also fueled a raft of state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage as well as an effort in Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Bush's promise to name conservatives justices, "more than perhaps any other, charged me and millions of other values voters across the land to vote for Mr. Bush," Perkins said after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement. He said the new court vacancy "presents the most important opportunity we may have for decades to stop the nation's courts from stripping away our Judeo- Christian heritage."

The Massachusetts ruling relied heavily on the Lawrence decision that decriminalized homosexuality. That 6-3 ruling was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican appointee of President Ronald Reagan, denounced afterward as "the most dangerous man in America" by Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.

The stakes are every bit as high for lesbians and gays.

A Supreme Court ruling against same-sex marriage would be disastrous for the gay rights movement, which views marriage as a core right that could in one stroke eliminate nearly all other forms of discrimination.

Fearing such a setback, gay legal advocacy groups are deliberately holding back on challenges to the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, even though the Massachusetts marriages present the first opportunity to challenge that law.

Instead, they are concentrating on getting more state courts or legislatures to permit same-sex marriage or civil unions while waiting for cultural norms to shift in their favor.

Gay advocacy groups are "trying to make it possible for more same-sex couples to marry in more parts of the country before this matter gets taken to the Supreme Court," Davidson said. "That's not at all unusual in various human rights struggles. You don't ask the highest court to decide questions until they've been vetted by other courts and more discussed by the general public."

The only gay rights-related case on next term's Supreme Court docket addresses whether colleges can keep military recruiters off their campuses because the military discriminates against gays.

Bigger issues may still be several years off.

These include a challenge to Nebraska's constitutional amendment banning not only same-sex marriage but also civil unions, domestic partnerships or any similar contract between lesbian and gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down the amendment as violating the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, citing Romer vs. Evans. Both sides vow to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Gay rights groups are highly skeptical of Roberts on the basis of his decisions in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and his work for the Reagan and first Bush administrations that imply a narrow view of the judiciary's role in overseeing executive and legislative action.

They will be concentrating on whether Roberts believes the Constitution contains a right to privacy, and whether he believes the Romer case he helped win was correctly decided.

"Judicial restraint is a buzzword just like activist judge," said Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry. "Everybody's in favor of judicial restraint, but what does it mean? If it means not acting as a check against majoritarian excesses or upholding constitutional rights against improper government action, then restraint is not something admirable."

Most of Roberts' work -- such as a decision he joined in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld allowing military tribunals -- shows "a very cramped view of constitutional protection for personal liberty," Wolfson said.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, finds no reassurance in Roberts' work on Romer.

"(It) tells us absolutely nothing about his views on whether lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are protected by the Constitution or whether our relationships are entitled to equal protection," Kors said. [/quote:879e7bcfab]

Okay.... That was a helpful, interesting article, but I'm totally depressed now.

They made it sound pretty hopeless as far as positive change any time soon is concerned. And the thought of a federal ban on same-sex marriage just makes me sick. It would be such a totally black day for gay America. The problem is, with Bush in power, and with the sort of ugly selfish hate-filled attitudes so many people still seem to have, it isn't impossible to imagine it happening.

[quote:40c49329a4="www.advocate.com"]August 25, 2005

[b:40c49329a4]Gay groups go on record opposing Roberts's nomination[/b:40c49329a4]

Officials from the gay rights groups Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays said Thursday that they will oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"He has denigrated the nature and scope of the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection, and due process as well as federal government's role in confronting injustice," said Matt Foreman, executive director of NGLTF, in a statement. "I have no doubt he's an accomplished lawyer and an affable dinner companion, but that doesn't make him any less a mortal danger to equal rights for gay people, reproductive freedom, and affirmative action."

The confirmation hearings for Roberts, 50, are set to be held before the U.S. Senate on September 6. He is widely expected to be confirmed.

For gay men and lesbians, Roberts has become a very perplexing candidate.

Conservatives cite his work in the Reagan and first Bush administrations against Roe v Wade. That case hinged on the same privacy rights that underlie Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws across the country. However, Roberts did pro bono work helping prep the pro-gay civil rights attorneys who won the landmark 1996 Supreme Court decision overturning Colorado's Amendment 2. The 1992 ballot measure prohibited any state or local law protecting gays from discrimination.

"Ultimately this is about an individual's right to privacy. From a women's rights to religious freedom to civil rights, there is powerful evidence that Judge Roberts would rule against equality," said Joe Solmonese, HRC president.[/quote:40c49329a4]

We are so screwed now. :(

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050904/ap_on_go_su_co/rehnquist

[quote:417032b0c5][b:417032b0c5]Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at His Home[/b:417032b0c5]

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died Saturday evening of cancer, ending a remarkable 33-year tenure on the Supreme Court and creating a rare second vacancy on the nation's highest court.

Rehnquist, 80, was surrounded by his three children when he died at his home in suburban Arlington.

"The Chief Justice battled thyroid cancer since being diagnosed last October and continued to perform his duties on the court until a precipitous decline in his health the last couple of days," said court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.

Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court as an associate justice in 1971 by President Nixon and took his seat on Jan. 7, 1972. He was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986.

His death ends a career during which Rehnquist oversaw the court's conservative shift, presided over an impeachment trial and helped decide a presidential election.

The death leaves President Bush with his second court opening within four months and sets up what's expected to be an even more bruising Senate confirmation battle than that of John Roberts.

It was not immediately clear what impact Rehnquist's death would have on confirmation hearings for Roberts, scheduled to begin Tuesday.

Rehnquist presided over President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, helped settle the 2000 presidential election in Bush's favor, and fashioned decisions over the years that diluted the powers of the federal government while strengthening those of the states.

Arberg said plans regarding funeral arrangements would be forthcoming.

Bush was notified of Rehnquist's death shortly before 11 p.m. EDT.

"President Bush and Mrs. Bush are deeply saddened by the news," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. "It's a tremendous loss for our nation." The president was expected to make a personal statement about Rehnquist on Sunday.

The chief justice passed up a chance to step down over the summer, which would have given the Senate a chance to confirm his successor while the court was out of session, and instead Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement to spend time with her ill husband. Bush chose Roberts, a former Rehnquist clerk and friend, to replace O'Connor.

Rehnquist said in July that he wanted to stay on the bench as long as his health would allow.

The president could elevate to chief justice one of the court's conservatives, such as Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, but it's more likely he will choose someone from outside the court.

Possible replacements include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, Edith Clement, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza, and James Harvie Wilkinson III. Others mentioned are former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, lawyer Miguel Estrada and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.

Rehnquist announced last October that he had thyroid cancer. He had a trachea tube inserted to help him breathe and underwent radiation and chemotherapy treatments. Details of the chief justice's illness and his plans had been tightly guarded. He looked frail at Bush's inauguration in January and missed five months of court sessions before returning to the bench in March.

On the court's final meeting day of the last term,[i:417032b0c5] June 27, Rehnquist appeared gaunt and had difficulty as he announced the last decision of the term — an opinion he wrote upholding a Ten Commandments display in Texas. [/i:417032b0c5]His breathing was labored, and he kept the explanation short.

He had no public appearances over the summer, although he was filmed by television crews in July as he left the hospital following two nights for treatment of a fever.

Rehnquist had an extraordinary career, with many historic milestones.

In 1999, he presided over Bill Clinton's impeachment trial from the presiding officer's chair seat in the Senate, something only one other chief justice had done. A year later he was one of five Republican-nominated justices who voted to stop presidential ballot recounts in Florida, effectively deciding the election for Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

"The Supreme Court of Florida ordered recounts of tens of thousands of so-called `undervotes' spread through 64 of the state's 67 counties. This was done in a search for elusive — perhaps delusive — certainty as to the exact count of 6 million votes," he wrote.

[i:417032b0c5]Rehnquist, who championed states' rights and helped speed up executions, is the only member still on the court who voted on Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion. He opposed that decision, writing: "Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the `right' to an abortion is not so universally accepted as (Roe) would have us believe."

He believed there was a place for some religion in government. He wrote the 5-4 decision in 2002 that said parents may use public tax money to send their children to religious schools. Two years later, he was distressed when the court passed up a chance to declare that the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is constitutional.

"The phrase 'under God' in the pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the nation's leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances," he wrote.[/i:417032b0c5]

Rehnquist leaves without accomplishing the legal revolution he had hoped for as the nation's 16th chief justice. As Rehnquist read it, the Constitution lets states outlaw abortion and sponsor prayers in public schools but bars them from giving special, affirmative-action preferences to racial minorities and women. The court he led disagreed.

[i:417032b0c5]In 2003, for example, the court preserved affirmative action in college admissions and issued a landmark gay rights ruling that struck down laws criminalizing gay sex, both over Rehnquist's objections.[/i:417032b0c5] And last year, Rehnquist disagreed when the court ruled that the government cannot indefinitely detain terrorism suspects and deny them access to courts

Rehnquist was somewhat of a surprise choice when President Nixon nominated him to the court in 1971. He was a 47-year-old Justice Department lawyer with a reputation for brilliance and unbending conservative ideology when he was chosen to fill the seat of retiring Justice John Marshall Harlan. Rehnquist, who practiced law in Phoenix before moving to Washington, was the court's youngest member.

For years he was known as the "Lone Ranger" for his many dissents on a then-liberal court that left him ideologically isolated on the far right. Succeeding appointments of conservative justices and Rehnquist's elevation by President Reagan to the federal judiciary's top job in 1986 transformed his role into one of leading and nurturing an increasingly conservative Supreme Court.

Rehnquist was the force behind the court's push for greater states' rights. The chief justice has been the leader of five conservatives, sometimes called "the Rehnquist five," who generally advocate limited federal government interference.

Those five — Rehnquist and O'Connor, Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Thomas — have voted together to strike down federal laws intended to protect female victims of violent crime and keep guns away from schools, on grounds that those issues were better dealt with at the local level. They split, however, in a recent decision upholding the federal government's right to ban sick people from smoking marijuana even in states that have laws allowing the treatment.

The Rehnquist five were together in the Bush v. Gore decision, which critics predicted would tarnish the court's hard-won luster. The closing paragraph of a book Rehnquist wrote on the court's history may stand as his answer to criticism.

Rehnquist noted that the court makes "demonstrable errors" from time to time, but he added, "It and the country have survived these mistakes and the court as an institution has steadily grown in authority and prestige."

He had deflected criticism about his views on race during his 1971 confirmation, and the one 15 years later when he became chief justice. As a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson, Rehnquist wrote memos in 1952 that appeared to suggest Jackson should oppose Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark ruling that declared public school segregation unconstitutional.

As chief justice, Rehnquist drew complaints when he led a group of lawyers and judges in a rendition of "Dixie" at a conference in Virginia in 1999. He did not respond to a black lawyers' organization that called the song an offensive "symbol of slavery and oppression."

Rehnquist, a widower since 1991, dodged questions about his legacy in a March 2004 interview. He said that he tried to keep the court running smoothly and keep the peace among the justices.

"To get everybody working harmoniously together is not a small feat," he said on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show." "You have to have a very high boiling point."

Within the court, Rehnquist was a far more popular chief justice than his predecessor, Warren Burger. Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens said in 2002 that Rehnquist brought "efficiency, good humor and absolute impartiality" to the job. Some justices complained that Burger was heavy-handed and pompous.

Rehnquist's grandparents emigrated to the United States from Sweden in 1880 and settled in Chicago. His grandfather was a tailor, his grandmother a school teacher. Rehnquist grew up in Wisconsin, the son of paper salesman and a translator.

He at first had planned to be a college professor, but a test showed him suited to the legal field. In 1952, he graduated first in his class at Stanford University's law school, where he briefly dated O'Connor, the high court's first female justice.

Rehnquist caused great amusement when he departed from tradition by adding four shiny gold stripes to each sleeve of his black robe in 1995. The flourish was inspired by a costume in a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta.

A close student of the Supreme Court's traditions and history, he was a stickler for decorum. He frequently admonished hapless lawyers who did not show what Rehnquist regarded as proper courtesy in the courtroom. His gravelly monotone silenced any who kept talking past their allotted time.

He was the enthusiastic host of an annual, old-fashioned employee Christmas party at the court. At a time when many schools, government offices and private businesses quietly did away with overtly Christian holiday symbols, Rehnquist led the singing of traditional Christmas carols.

Rehnquist has led a quiet social life outside the court. Until recently, he walked daily, as tonic for a chronic bad back, and played tennis with his law clerks. He enjoyed bridge, spending time with his eight grandchildren, charades and a monthly poker game with Scalia and a revolving cast of powerful Washington men. He liked beer, and smoked in private.

The only chief justice older than Rehnquist was Roger Taney, who presided over the high court in the mid-1800s until his death at 87. Rehnquist was also closing in on the record for longest-serving justice. Only four men were on the court 34 years or longer. [/quote:417032b0c5]

[quote:a91100bf7e]We are so screwed now.[/quote:a91100bf7e]

Yeah. :tears:

Rhenquist's replacement might not be any more conservative than he was, but he'll be on the bench much longer. Reducing the odds of gettting a more balanced Court anytime soon.

[quote:ea61689a99][b:ea61689a99]Bush picks Roberts to replace Rehnquist[/b:ea61689a99]
Move would promote a judge still being considered as an associate justice
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:27 p.m. ET Sept. 5, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday 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 Oct. 3.

The swift move would promote to the Supreme Court’s top job a newcomer who currently is being considered as one of eight associate justices. It would also ensure a full 9-member court, because retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has said she will remain on the job until her replacement is confirmed.

“I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me,� Roberts said, standing alongside Bush in the Oval Office. “I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years.�

“He’s a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he’s inspired the respect and loyalty of others,� Bush said. “John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others. in his extraordinary career.�

[b:ea61689a99]Sensitive time for Bush[/b:ea61689a99]
The selection of Roberts, who has drawn little criticism, helps Bush avoid new political problems when he already is under fire for the government’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina and his approval ratings in the polls are at the lowest point of his presidency.

The Senate is expected to begin his confirmation hearings as chief justice either Thursday or next Monday. The opening of Roberts’ previously scheduled confirmation hearings, for the position of associate justice, initially was to be Tuesday, but that was canceled until after Rehnquist’s funeral on Wednesday.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he still expects Roberts to be confirmed before the new court session begins on October 3.

“The president has made an excellent choice,� Frist said Monday. “Mr. Roberts is one of the most well qualified candidates to come before the Senate. He will be an excellent chief.�

Democrats said Roberts will now be held to a higher standard, although they had found little in his record to suggest they would thwart his nomination as associate justice.

“Now that the president has said he will nominate Judge Roberts as chief justice, the stakes are higher and the Senate’s advice and consent responsibility is even more important,� Democratic leader Harry Reid said Monday in a statement. “The Senate must be vigilant.�

The president met with Roberts in the private residence of the White House for about 35 to 40 minutes on Sunday evening, then officially offered him the job at 7:15 a.m. Monday when Roberts arrived at the Oval Office.

“This had been something that had been in the president’s thinking for some time — in case the chief justice retired or that there otherwise was a vacancy,� White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. “The president when he met with him, knew he was a natural born leader. The president knew Judge Roberts had the qualities to lead the court.�

McClellan said the White House is confident that Roberts can be confirmed by the Senate by Oct. 3. Bush still has to pick a successor for Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, although she said at the time of her retirement announcement that she would remain until a replacement were seated.

McClellan said Bush called O’Connor from Air Force One en route to Louisiana Monday to talk with her about his decision. “He indicated that he was going to move quickly to find her replacement as well,� the president’s spokesman added.

[b:ea61689a99]Bush: Roberts 'a man of integrity and fairness'[/b:ea61689a99]
Getting a new chief justice of Bush’s choosing in place quickly also avoids the scenario of having liberal Justice John Paul Stevens making the decisions about whom to assign cases to and making other decisions that could influence court deliberations. As the court’s senior justice, Stevens would take over Rehnquist’s administrative duties until a new chief is confirmed.

“The passing of Chief Justice William Rehnquist leaves the center chair empty, just four weeks left before the Supreme Court reconvenes,� Bush said. “It’s in the interest of the court and the country to have a chief justice on the bench on the first full day of the fall term.�

Bush said Roberts has been closely scrutinized since he was nominated as an associate justice and that Americans “like what they see. He is a gentleman. He is a man of integrity and fairness.� He said Roberts has unusual experience, having argued 39 cases as a lawyer before the Supreme Court. Bush also said Roberts was a natural leader.

The move was engineered to have all nine seats on the high court filled when the court opens its fall term.

The White House is not opposed to a delay in Roberts’ confirmation hearings as long as senators vote on the confirmation before the court session begins on the first Monday of October.

“We believe they have enough time to move forward to meet that goal because of all the work that’s already been done and Justice O’Connor had previously indicated that she was going to stay on the court until her position was filled,� McClellan said.

Bush already had nominated Roberts to take O’Connor’s place. It requires just a little paper shuffling to change the nomination for Rehnquist’s seat.

White House chief of staff Andy Card informed members of Congress, calling Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking Democrat on the committee; and House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

The White House counsel’s office notified the Supreme Court through Justice John Paul Stevens, the senior-most member of the court.

[b:ea61689a99]Nomination 'raises the stakes'[/b:ea61689a99]
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the judiciary panel, said the nomination “raises the stakes� in making sure that the American people and the Senate knows Roberts’ views.

“Judge Roberts has a clear obligation to make his views known fully and completely at the hearings and we look forward to them,� Schumer said.

Liberal groups have expressed opposition to Roberts because of his conservative writings as an attorney for the Reagan administration and his rulings as an appeals court judge. However, it does not appear that his opponents have enough votes to block Roberts’ confirmation.

That alone might have been impetus for Bush to rename Roberts for chief justice. Bush, with low standing in the polls, might not have the political capital he would need to win a Senate battle over a conservative ideologue who would draw intense opposition.

Rehnquist, 80 at his death, served on the Supreme Court for 33 years and was its leader for 19 years.

Rehnquist, a World War II Army Air Corps veteran, will be buried in a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery alongside his wife, who died in 1991, following a funeral that morning at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington. He died Saturday at his home.

His body will lie in repose in the marble Great Hall of the Supreme Court building on Tuesday and on Wednesday morning with the public invited to pay its respects.

Five members of the court have lain in repose there: Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger, and Justices Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9215790/[/quote:ea61689a99]

This letter to John Roberts was published in last month's Advocate. I really enjoyed this and found it does give some insight into him. It's Javascript so I cannot give a direct link, I'll give the link to the page with the Java link.

http://www.advocate.com/search_results.asp

[quote:cb6e97a419][b:cb6e97a419]A letter to Judge Roberts[/b:cb6e97a419]
[i:cb6e97a419]By Paris Barclay
From The Advocate, September 13, 2005[/i:cb6e97a419]

Dear John, When I first met you in August 1970, I could never have imagined that you would become George W. Bush’s nominee to the highest court in the land. I’m frightened. Should I be?

You were a sophomore at the La Lumiere School for Boys (as it was called then) and I was a freshman. Along with my brother and one other student, I was a grand experiment. We were the first African-American students at what had been an all-white, all-Catholic, all-boarding school in northern Indiana. On the football team, I remember you as a fierce competitor of limited ability—just like me. I remember the same sideways grin that has now graced the front pages of newspapers and magazines across the country. I do not remember a trace of prejudice. Still, I’m worried. Should I be?

You were the smartest kid in that sophomore class by far, but with a modesty that set you apart from many of your arrogant (and occasionally racist) classmates. With only 100 students in all four high school classes, you were close enough for me to study you. You didn’t have the best clothes, which made me comfortable with you—I thought you weren’t a genuine “preppy,� just a brainiac blessed (or cursed) with an inner, unstoppable drive. I didn’t think much about what you thought of me. I didn’t identify as gay yet, so that wasn’t even an issue.

In three years, we spent a good deal of time together—on the football team (which you eventually cocaptained), on the newspaper (which you coedited), in the now-infamous all-male drama club (where you were quite a good Patty in You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown, though no match for my Snoopy.) I went on to become a virtual mirror image of you: first in my class, cocaptain of the football team, wrestler(!), editor of student publications.

But now I’m concerned. Do I have reason?

I even followed you to Harvard, where we separated into worlds that rarely connected. The last time I recall seeing you on campus was when I came to visit before I was accepted, and you hosted me in your dorm room. You stayed in to study. I went out drinking with your roommates.

Flash-forward to today. Inundated by calls to comment on your character and our school days together, I’ve spoken to precious few. Even when our yearbook pictures were splattered around national headlines, I’ve stayed pretty cagey. Here’s why: None of us has any idea who you are today, John, and what the crucible of the Supreme Court will make of you. We have reporters and advocates scouring everything you’ve touched—discouraged by your antichoice arguments and encouraged by your pro bono work on a Supreme Court ruling that to this day helps protect gay people from discrimination.

Will you be as conservative as the Bushes and the Roves and the Dobsons hope (the most likely scenario, as we’ve seen in the past six years that they rarely make mistakes where it counts)? Or will the modest, fiercely intelligent, apparently unprejudiced young man in you turn his back on political pressure, embrace the true freedom of a lifetime appointment, and decide the cases before you with a deep sense of the equality of all people that our Constitution uses as its touchstone?

I’m hoping and praying that will be the case, John.

Best, Paris Barclay[/quote:cb6e97a419]

John Roberts has been confirmed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

*Commence oogley feeling*

I know it's the least of our worries right now, but I found this blurb here: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050720163909990007

[quote:7ee829f075]Kids who eat food on public buses and trains should beware. In a 2000 case, Roberts ruled that police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a subway station in Washington, D.C.[/quote:7ee829f075]

:roll:

I don't know if there should be a new thread for Harriet Miers or not...

According to this article, she was very uncomfortable about meeting with a lesbian and gay political caucus when she ran for city council in Dallas in the late 1980's:

[quote:c286b33b99]Bartos says that when Miers, a lawyer who worked for an old, ultra-conservative Dallas firm, expressed uneasiness about seeking gay and lesbian endorsements, Bartos realized she and Miers needed to take time out from the campaign for a serious sit-down.

"She was honest with me," Bartos says. She says Miers told her she was very uneasy about seeking gay and lesbian endorsements. In the same conversation, Bartos says, Miers told her she was opposed to abortion. She says Miers had been pro-choice in her youth but had experienced a "born-again" religious awakening that caused her to change her mind.

Bartos says she persuaded Miers it would be a mistake not to show up for the candidate night at the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

"She went, and she told them what they didn't want to hear."

The caucus confronted Miers with a list of test questions. Miers answered their questions honestly but did not seek their endorsement. It didn't take long for the caucus to decide that Miers definitely was not their friend.[/quote:c286b33b99]

Full article here:

[url]http://www.dallasobserver.com/Issues/2005-09-29/news/schutze.html[/url]

Of course, its possible that she was uncomfortable due to internalized homophobia. Although, there is some suggestion that, although she's never married, she's had a "close" relationship with a man for 30 years:

[quote:c286b33b99]A close relationship with Justice Hecht - also a longtime member of Valley View - who frequently appears with Ms. Miers at social functions in Washington and in Texas, has been a steady feature of her life for nearly 30 years. Justice Hecht is known as one of the most conservative members of the Republican-dominated Texas Supreme Court.

Newspapers in Texas have reported that Justice Hecht and Ms. Miers were romantically involved, and when asked in an interview whether that was still the case, Justice Hecht responded that they were close, without going into great detail. "She works in Washington, I work in Austin," Justice Hecht said. "We have dinner when she's here; if she invites me to Washington I happily go. We talk on the phone all the time."[/quote:c286b33b99]

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05miers.html?pagewanted=3[/url]

Issues of orientation aside, if she has never married, does that make her 1) less evangelical than people are saying, or 2) more open to abortion rights (and LGBT rights?) than people are saying?

The NYT article, at page 1, says makes her appearance at the lesbian and gay political caucus sounds somewhat less horrible:

[quote:c286b33b99]She appeared as a candidate at the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, but even though [b:c286b33b99]she said gays should have the same civil rights as others in society[/b:c286b33b99], she stopped short of endorsing a repeal of a Texas law criminalizing gay sexual activity.[/quote:c286b33b99]

(emphasis mine)

Still, I am not very hopeful.

[quote:f8fe01a323="ronia"][quote:f8fe01a323]even though [b:f8fe01a323]she said gays should have the same civil rights as others in society[/b:f8fe01a323], she stopped short of endorsing a repeal of a Texas law criminalizing gay sexual activity.[/quote:f8fe01a323][/quote:f8fe01a323]

Um.... how is that having the same civil rights as others in society? What about the right to NOT be considered a criminal when you have consensual sex with another adult?

*Shrugs shoulders in disgust*

She sounds like a witch. We're screwed.

It doesn't make sense at all, but its a little something. But, you're right - not much.

Edited to add - my secret hope is that she'll turn out to be a deeply closeted lesbian who rules for us from the bench - but what are the odds? Nonexistent, I know.

I think she's in love with George Bush, which makes her about as far from being a lesbian as you can possibly be.

Now we have a new George Bush Supreme Court selection to look forward to. :roll:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20051027/pl_nm/court...

[quote:c01e566df7][b:c01e566df7]Miers withdraws nomination[/b:c01e566df7]

By Steve Holland 55 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, White House counsel Harriet Miers, abruptly withdrew from consideration on Thursday after fierce criticism from the right and the left about her credentials for the lifetime job.

Bush said in a statement he reluctantly accepted her withdrawal and would move in a timely manner to fill the vacancy left open by the pending retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In a letter to Bush released by the White House, Miers said she was concerned that the Senate confirmation process "presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."

Some opponents had mounted a campaign to force her withdrawal and some conservative senators had expressed doubts as to whether Miers was sufficiently conservative to move the divided nine-member high court firmly to the right.

Some Democrats were also skeptical about whether she was against a woman's right to abortion, a hugely divisive issue that could come before the Supreme Court.

As a reason for pulling out, Miers, 60, cited the need to maintain privacy of internal records of her White House service that members of Congress wanted to see but Bush wanted to keep confidential.

"I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," Miers wrote.

BUSH SHARES CONCERNS

"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue," she said.

Miers will stay on as White House counsel.

Bush, in his statement, said he understood and shared Miers' concern about the confirmation process.

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," he said.

A senior aide to Bush said the president "obviously was not happy about how the modern-day confirmation process has unfolded."

"His respect for her obviously has grown in the fact that she was able to set aside any personal ambition and put the presidency and the process on a higher plain," the aide said.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said he respected Miers' decision.

"I look forward with anticipation to the president naming the next nominee quickly," he said.

The dispute over Miers' nomination coincided with mounting pressure at the White House over the possible indictment of a number of senior officials over the leak of the identity of a CIA operative whose husband criticized Bush's Iraq policy. [/quote:c01e566df7]

[quote:e568613e57="koma"]Now we have a new George Bush Supreme Court selection to look forward to. :roll:[/quote:e568613e57]

Yup, it doesn't seem good. If she's been forced to pull out, it's basically because the conservatives don't think she's hardline ENOUGH. Hate to think of what he's going to come up with to satisfy them.

*looks queasy*

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20051031/ap_on_go_su...

[quote:637d5fa476][b:637d5fa476]Bush to Nominate Alito to Supreme Court[/b:637d5fa476]

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer 11 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, will nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, selecting a conservative federal judge to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate.

The choice, confirmed by two senior Republican official, was likely to spark a political brawl. Unlike the nomination of Harriet Miers, which was derailed by Bush's conservative allies, Alito will face opposition from liberal Democrats.

Bush planned to announce the nomination at 8 a.m. EST.

The White House hopes the choice mends a rift in the Republican Party caused by his failed nomination of Miers, and puts his embattled presidency on a path to political recovery. Democrats already put the White House on notice that a conservative judge such as Alito would create problems.

[b:637d5fa476]So consistently conservative, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.[/b:637d5fa476] But while Scalia is outspoken and is known to badger lawyers, Alito is polite, reserved and even-tempered.

Miers bowed out last Thursday after three weeks of bruising criticism from members of Bush's own party who argued that the Texas lawyer and loyal Bush confidant had thin credentials on constitutional law and no proven record as a judicial conservative.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to preview Bush's remarks, said Alito was virtually certain to get the nod from the moment Miers backed out. The 55-year-old jurist was Bush's favorite choice of the judges in the last set of deliberations but he settled instead on someone outside what he calls the "judicial monastery," the officials said.

Bush believes that Alito has not only the right experience and conservative ideology for the job, but he also has a temperament suited to building consensus on the court. A former prosecutor, Alito has experience off the bench that factored into Bush's thinking, the officials said.

"Judge Alito has a strong judicial track record," said Republican consultant Greg Mueller who works closely with conservative activists. "He has more experience than many who have come to the court."

[b:637d5fa476]While Alito is expected to win praise from Bush's allies on the right, Democrats have served notice that his nomination would spark a partisan brawl. [/b:637d5fa476]Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Sunday that Alito's nomination would "create a lot of problems."

Unlike Miers, who has never been a judge, Alito, a jurist from New Jersey, has been a strong conservative voice on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, seated him there in 1990.

With the embarrassing withdrawal of the Miers nomination last week, the rising death toll in Iraq and Friday's indictment of top vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Bush's approval ratings are at the lowest ebb of his presidency. Polls show Democrats and most independents don't approve of his job performance, leaving the conservative wing of his party the only thing keeping Bush afloat politically.

Judicial conservatives praise Alito's 15 years on the Philadelphia-based court, a tenure that gives him more appellate experience than almost any previous Supreme Court nominee. They say his record shows a commitment to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, ensuring that the separation of powers and checks and balances are respected and enforced. They also contend that Alito has been a powerful voice for the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Liberal groups, on the other hand, note Alito's moniker and say his nomination raises troubling concerns, especially when it comes to his record on civil rights and reproductive rights. Alito is a frequent dissenter on the 3rd Circuit, one of the most liberal federal appellate benches in the nation.

In the early 1990s, Alito was the lone dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a case in which the 3rd Circuit struck down a Pennsylvania law that included a provision requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion," Alito wrote.

The case ended up at the Supreme Court where the justices, in a 6-3 decision struck down the spousal notification provision of the law. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist cited Alito's reasoning in his own dissent.

Alito, an Italian-American who grew up in Trenton, N.J., has a resume filled with stepping stones to the high court. He was educated at Princeton University and earned a law degree from Yale University, the president's alma mater.

The nomination of Alito could end the intense speculation over who would replace O'Connor, a decisive swing vote in a host of affirmative action, abortion, campaign finance, discrimination and death penalty cases.

Bush first picked John Roberts to replace O'Connor, but when Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died, the president quickly re-nominated Roberts to the top chair on the high court.

After the Senate confirmed Roberts 78-22, Bush nominated Miers to replace O'Connor. She withdrew within a month. [/quote:637d5fa476]

This had better start a political brawl. :bringit:

For the very first time in my life, as a gay American, I'm actually scared to live here.

:yeahthat:

...and it gets worse. :?

*cough* The real activist judge *cough*

[quote:877896be4e][b:877896be4e]Senate Confirms Alito to Supreme Court[/b:877896be4e]

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. became the nation's 110th Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, confirmed with one of the most partisan victories in modern history after a fierce battle over the future direction of the high court.

The Senate voted 58-42 to confirm Alito — a former federal appellate judge, U.S. attorney, and conservative lawyer for the Reagan administration from New Jersey — as the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a moderate swing vote on the court.

All but one of the Senate's majority Republicans voted for his confirmation, while all but four of the Democrats voted against Alito.

That is the smallest number of senators in the president's opposing party to support a Supreme Court justice in modern history. Chief Justice John Roberts got 22 Democratic votes last year, and Justice Clarence Thomas — who was confirmed in 1991 on a 52-48 vote — got 11 Democratic votes.

President Bush and Alito watched the vote together in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. Bush shook Alito's hand and aides erupted in a long round of applause when final approval came. He was to be sworn in by Roberts at the Supreme Court in a private ceremony later in the day, in plenty of time for him to appear with Bush at the State of the Union speech Tuesday evening.

Alito will be ceremonially sworn in a second time at a White House East Room appearance on Wednesday.

With the confirmation vote, O'Connor's resignation became official. She resigned in July but agreed to remain until her successor was confirmed. She was in Arizona this week teaching a class at the University of Arizona law school.

Underscoring the rarity of a Supreme Court justice confirmation, senators answered the roll by standing one by one at their desks as their names were called, instead of voting and leaving the chamber. Alito and Roberts are the first two new members of the Supreme Court since 1994.

Alito is a longtime federal appeals judge, having been confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on April 27, 1990. Before that, he worked as New Jersey's U.S. attorney and as a lawyer in the Justice Department for the conservative Reagan administration.

It was his Reagan-era work that caused the most controversy during his three-month candidacy for the high court.

Alito replaces O'Connor, the court's first female justice and a key moderate swing vote on issues like assisted suicide, campaign finance law, the death penalty, affirmative action and abortion.

Critics who mounted a fierce campaign against his nomination noted that while he worked in the solicitor general's office for President Reagan, he suggested that the Justice Department should try to chip away at abortion rights rather than mount an all-out assault. He also wrote in a 1985 job application for another Reagan administration post that he was proud of his work helping the government argue that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

Now, Alito says, he has great respect for Roe as a precedent but refused to commit to upholding it in the future. "I would approach the question with an open mind and I would listen to the arguments that were made," he told senators at his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

Democrats weren't convinced, with liberals even unsuccessfully trying to rally support to filibuster Alito on Monday. "The 1985 document amounted to Judge Alito's pledge of allegiance to a conservative radical Republican ideology," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said before the vote.

They also repeatedly questioned Alito at his five-day confirmation hearing after he would not discuss his opinions about abortion or other contentious topics. At one point, his wife, Martha-Ann, started crying and left the hearing room as her husband's supporters defended him from the Democratic questioning.

"To Judge Alito, I say you deserve a seat on the Supreme Court," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

While many predicted a dramatic showdown — similar to the filibuster battles and all-night talkathons that happened with Bush's lower court appointments — it never happened.

The GOP's 55-vote majority was enough to ensure confirmation, and it was supported by groups like Progress for America, which said it would spend as much as $18 million on confirmation battles. The 44 Democrats were not able to keep their party unified enough to filibuster Alito despite calls from groups like People for the American Way, the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights and the Alliance for Justice.

Groups both for and against Alito spent slightly over $2.5 million on advertising between his nomination on October 31 and January 22. That's nearly double the amount spent on Roberts' nomination, said the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and the Justice at Stake Campaign.

Alito's path to the Supreme Court is infused with New Jersey connections. Born in Trenton as the son of an Italian immigrant, he attended Princeton University. He headed to Connecticut to receive his law degree, graduating from Yale University in 1975. His late father, Samuel Alito Sr., was the director of New Jersey's Office of Legislative Services from 1952 to 1984. Alito's sister, Rosemary, is a top employment lawyer in New Jersey.

Alito was not the White House's first choice — or even second choice — for the Supreme Court. Bush picked Roberts when O'Connor first announced she was stepping down last year.

After Roberts was promoted to the top spot after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died, the White House against passed over Alito for the vacant seat, instead selecting White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Miers' withdrawal following a barrage of conservative criticism in late October finally brought Alito's name to the forefront, although he then had to contend with constant references as "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite," references to his judicial similarity to Justice Antonin Scalia.

"I'm my own person. And I'm not like any other justice on the Supreme Court now or anybody else who served on the Supreme Court in the past," Alito said at his confirmation hearing. [/quote:877896be4e]

[quote:2901259f71="Ronijn"]
Hate to say it but just another reason I'm thankful I'm Canadian.[/quote:2901259f71]

Rub it in, why don't you? :tears:

I knew it. i just knew they'd bring in some right-wing wackjob.

A french fry, eh?

Simply amazing. Seems like the hungry also need to watch out for this guy.

I'm going to officially start looking for real-estate in Canada. I hear Vancouver is nice. Any suggestions?

I doubt it's anything to get too excited over, but I thought this was interesting:

[quote:a9ffc41aac="www.advocate.com"]August 05, 2005

[b:a9ffc41aac]John Roberts helped win gay rights case[/b:a9ffc41aac]

Gay rights activists and attorneys who successfully defeated Colorado's antigay Amendment 2 in 1996 received important support from John G. Roberts Jr., Bush's pick to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. According to an August 4 report in the Los Angeles Times, Roberts worked behind the scenes providing legal expertise to help the activists persuade the Supreme Court to issue what was at the time considered the most important ruling in gay rights history, overturning a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited the state from protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work, reports the Times. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case. Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts's work on behalf of gay rights activists appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be. There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf. The lawyer who asked for Roberts's help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan and Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job," Smith told the Times.

Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists and a former Colorado supreme court justice, said that when she came to Washington to prepare for the U.S. Supreme Court presentation, she immediately was referred to Roberts. "Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky told the Times. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."

Dubofsky said Roberts gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial." "He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said. She said Roberts served on a moot court panel as she prepared for oral arguments, with Roberts taking the role of a Scalia-like justice to pepper her with tough questions. When Dubofsky appeared before the justices, Scalia did indeed demand specific legal citations from the lower-court ruling. "I had it right there at my fingertips," she said. "John Roberts...was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," she said. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute." Dubofsky said Roberts helped her form the argument that the initiative violated the "equal protections" clause of the constitution.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. The blistering dissent by Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, read, "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."[/quote:a9ffc41aac]

Of course, now that he's been picked by Bush for such a high-profile post, he'll probably fall over himself trying to disavow anything gay-friendly he's ever done in the past :roll:

[quote:42a751a072]The blistering dissent by Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, read, "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."[/quote:42a751a072]

8O I had to double check what century that was written in. 8O

While I appreciate the article (as always :) ), I have to say that it didn't strike me as "he's on our team now" or anything like that. Of course, that wasn't helped by the line about how a lawyer can defend a client whether or not s/he agrees with them. :roll: Buuuut, I suppose his entire past is going to be dredged up now, so it is nice to see him doing some sort of non-evil work, even though I'm with Claudia in believing that it won't mean diddly-squat to us now. :?