Tuesday, July 19, 2005

John G Roberts

John G Roberts is the USSC Nominee. I had a lot of stuff for Edith Brown "Joy" Clement and a fair amount on J. Michael Luttig, but I got surprised by the nomination of John Roberts

Age: 50

Harvard College, A.B., 1976
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1979

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by George W. Bush on January 7, 2003. Nomination approved by the Judiciary Committee 16-3, confirmed by the full Senate on May 8, 2003 without a roll call vote. Received commission on June 2, 2003.
Professional Career:
Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1989-1993
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1986-1989, 1993-2003
Associate Counsel to the President, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-1986
Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1982
Clerk, Assoc. Justice William Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981
Clerk, Hon. Henry Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1979-1980

John Roberts was supposedly in London

Live blogging on Southern Appeal

Live blogging on ConfirmThem

Here are some of his opinions as a judge.

Here is his bio according to WaPo

Here is what Sen. John Coryn (R-Tex.) thinks

Here is what NARAL thinks

Here is what Freddie at ConfirmThem thinks President Bush certainly came through for judicial conservatives tonight. Roberts is a solid originalist/textualist, and he will make for an incredible justice. Oh, and he will be confirmed. My favorite quote of the night, courtesy of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (over at the Greedy Clerks Board):

My God - they’re going to put a real lawyer on the bench. This is very, very exciting.
Here is what UnderneathTheirRobes thinks

Here is his opinion in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, the case involving a woman arrested for eating on the Metro

Here is a transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts dated Jan. 29, 2003

Roberts's D.C. Confirmation Hearing transcript

Here is his 2003 Financial Disclosure Report

Wikipedia article

Here is what dKosopedia (the left wing Daily Kos community) thinks of him

Here is what LAW.com thinks

Here is what SCNB thinks

Here is what NOW thinks

Here is what WaPo thinks, also this

Here is what NYT thinks

Here is what ProChoiceAmerica thinks

Here is what National Abortion Federation thinks

Here is what Alliance for Justice thinks

Here is what Free Congress Foundation’s Judicial Selection Monitoring Project thought in 2001

Here is what Orlando Report thinks

Here is what GOPNation thinks

Here is what JonathanBWilson thinks

Here is his college yearbook photo

Here is what WFU - School of Law said when he delivered the Second Annual Rupe Lecture

Here is what Volokh thinks

Here is what BusinessWeek thinks


Anonymous said...

Good links. Not surprising though. "Most" liberals will not like him and everyone else seems okay with the choice. Those who look at his ability say he is a top choice. Those who think "the right to abortion" is in the constitution will oppose him.

I think he is a good choice.

Don Singleton said...

I agree. And as far as those that think "the right to abortion" is in the constitution they should propose a formal ammendment to put it there. All they need is a 2/3 vote of both houses, and a 3/4 vote of state legislatures, neither of which they have a snowball's chance of getting. and if we can just get a few more judges that will just read the Constitution with regular glasses, and not some fancy X-Ray Specs trying to find rights that are not there, and if judges wanting to make laws will resign from the bench and run for the legislature, we would have a lot fewer problems.