View Full Version : John Roberts

Mota Boy
08-17-2005, 11:40 PM
It's not the man himself that bothers me, it's what his nomination says about the process of selecting judges. We're talking about a man that's only served on one of the second-highest courts in the nation for two years and has never really issued his own decision. He can't be the most qualified.

Or is it that he's just the blandest? He's probably pro-life - but maybe he'll respect precedent. He might be against Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, which could completely redefine the federal government - but that's just speculation. About anything else, I don't have a clue. He's young, he's handsome and he's not demonstrated any real opinions - he's perfect!

As much as I am relieved he's not, say, a Ray Moore (the Alabama Judge that snuck the 10 commandments into the Alabama courthouse), I find it distressing that the strategy of the executive office, is to get a young gun in that can sneak through the nomination process by not giving a single opinion on anything. Shit, even his name - John Roberts - is bland.

Or is this the way to go? Is this actually for the best? Perhaps we're all much better off with a moderate court than with opposing firebrands. After all, five Michael Moore's and four Anne Coulter's would essentially be a court dominated by the Moore's, whereas nine... OK, there aren't any more nationally prominant moderates (McCain and Lieberman are mavericks, but not moderates), but nine moderates would be much more towards "mainstream" America.

The Supreme Court is a tough nut to crack. Yes, we do need impartial judicial oversight about federal laws, but at the same time, no matter how intelligent and educated the justices are, it's still a bunch of old, brilliant, amazingly educated dudes/dudettes giving their personal opinion on the matter. You can be a brilliant conservative, a brilliant liberal or a brilliant everything in between and beyond, it doesn't matter. Perhaps using public censure to root out the ones that fall too far outside the bell curve before they can ascend truly is the best method.


08-18-2005, 12:58 AM
I disagree that he's handsome.

Also in my view a good judge has to be neutral.

And I personally think they should stop thinking of the Supreme Courts of the land as juridical organs but separate from but in some way part of the it. So the judges are directly elected. This is done indirectly because the pres gets to appoint someone of course but I mean the whole bench. Because it's never a matter of applying legal rules and everythign to do with your views in appellate litigation. So it deserves some direct election.

Sin Studly
08-18-2005, 04:28 AM
They shoulda got Judge Dredd.

08-18-2005, 11:11 AM
I used to get called that in school cause I protected the small kids from this bully fat chineese kid who used to give a girl 5 years his minor sweets.