Stop living in the past, what is that 40+ years ago. Your argument has no validation, no logic.

if OJ got away iwth killing his wife, can I not use that as a defense?

hey, OJ got away with it, so can I.

:rolleyes:

I'm seeing a trend here.

The left wants the SCOTUS to uphold their badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases. (Like Roe v. Wade.)

The right wants the SCOTUS to uphold their badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases. (Like the Terry Schiavo law.)

No one seems to want a SCOTUS that will throw out badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases. I think Roberts would have been likely to throw out both of the above examples.

Therefore, because he will not uphold the left's badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases, the left opposes Roberts.

So you prefer a murderer to someone who passed a law that had no chance of being upheld in court?

My impression of Roberts is:
- Generally conservative, leans toward originalist view
- No real indication of being an "extreme" conservative
- Excellent, thoughtful, effective lawyer who respects the law
- Well-respected by colleagues and opposing counsel

I think that is as good a nominee as we're likely to get from the Bush Administration. Personally I'd prefer a less conservative nominee, but the court should reflect a diversity of views with high-quality justices. Given that we have a Republican President and Congress, you can't really expect a liberal nominee. And Roberts appears to be a high-quality nominee. So I'm not opposed to Roberts.

I had dinner last night with a lawyer friend who is very liberal, very well-informed, and follows Supreme Court issues quite closely. He was a law clerk for one of the Justices, I forget which one. He was fairly pleased with the Roberts nomination.

He had two other comments, that I found interesting.

First, he thinks for Bush to nominate Roberts instead of an overt and extreme conservative is a sign of Bush's increasing lame-duck status. The President's legislative agenda is stalling out, his approval ratings are low, the Plame investigation is a threat, he doesn't have enough political capital to push through a super-ideologue like a Janice Rogers Brown.

Second, he thinks Roberts could be another Souter. Remember that Bush Sr nominated Souter as a solid conservative to replace liberal standard-bearer Brennan. But Souter didn't have a clear record (he was dubbed the "stealth justice" during the confirmation hearings) and Bush Sr. didn't get what he wanted. Souter proceeded to disappoint the conservative Republicans by being more of a centrist.

What do you think?

Another thought, this time one of mine - if you think that a lawyer must be personally committed to a view simply because he's argued that view as an advocate, you're taking a big risk.

I agree John, I think Roberts will be fine.

And yes, Bush clearly has spent all of his political capital, on what I still don't know, but he's as impotent as a Bumble with a root canal. Roberts is a no-brainer, and you can see that in Chuck Schumer's management of the Democratic message.

This seems like complete cack!

Look...it is a lawyer's job to "Argue" and to "Threaten"...

...to argue that OJ is innocent, to argue that Martha is guilty, to argue FOR Roe V Wade or AGAINST Roe vs. Wade, to argue WHATEVER based upon the case. That is what they get paid for and it usually has no bearing on what they personally believe.

If they don't "Argue" and "Threaten", they aren't doing their job.

Garrison has a few good words for the man:

http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/07/27/roberts/index.html

If he's cool with Garrison, he's cool with me.

Yes, but what does Mr Hat have to say about the whole thing?