WP: Few Have Felt Beat of Roberts's Political Heart

Sunday, July 24, 2005; A01

E. Barrett Prettyman Jr. fondly recalls working with John G. Roberts Jr. at Hogan & Hartson, the blue-chip Washington law firm where Prettyman was a renowned Supreme Court advocate, and Roberts was quickly becoming one. The two lawyers ate lunch together almost every day, and Prettyman says they became close friends, even though he's a staunch liberal and Roberts is a staunch conservative.

At least he thinks Roberts is a staunch conservative.

He's always assumed Roberts is a staunch conservative.

Actually, now that he racks his brain, he's not so sure.

"You know, I must have had a thousand lunches with John, and I can't think of a single thing he's said that would specify his politics," says Prettyman, a World War II veteran who once served as an aide to Robert F. Kennedy. "We were all under the impression that he's a conservative, but he always talked generalities. He's not the type to lay it all out."

Now that President Bush has nominated Roberts to serve on the court, many Americans are under the impression he's a staunch conservative. He's got a conservative résumé and a conservative lifestyle; he was chosen by a conservative president. But his public record and personal history suggest that his conservatism may not resemble the conservatism of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, Bush's favorite justices.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072301188.html

You can't tel how someone will be as a judge from their job as a lawyer.

Lawyers are paid to take the positions of their clients. Judges aren't (usually).

He might turn out to be one of the better conservative appointments.

There IS the part about his "conflicting" views on Roe V Wade, however it doesn't seem all that conflicting. He has said that he believes Roe V Wade was decided wrongly. He also said that Roe V Wade was settled law. Seems to me like he doesn't agree with it but isn't going to overturn it.

Just because he was appointed by heir Bush doesn't mean that he equals Bush. Yes, he's a conservative... but we're not going to get anything else out of this administration. For conservatives, he doesn't seem all that bad.

(snip)

He's a grammar snob; he once critiqued a Justice Department memo that sounded like "an awkward translation from Bulgarian."

?

and he may be a Kennedy rather than a Scalia. His wife is definitely pro-life but she also declares herself a "feminist," which is anathema to GOP -- so it's a mixed bag... A couple more articles like that and right wing may get worried anew. It took Bush a year after all to convince them that Roberts was conservative enough...

He is obviously a conservative but so is Kennedy who is not conservative enough only by the rw standards. He was one of the "milder" choices if you look at the rest, with the possible exception of Clement.

I think if Roberts is confirmed we are utterly and totally "f'd".

W will also be nominating Renquist's replacement. Then, everything will certainly be locked in place for their agenda. This is no time to go neutral on Roberts. That's the way I see things.

Roberts really is a conservative. Really. These stories are made to confuse. His wife is no "feminist." Good grief.

for life"?

Healthy Forests
Clear Skies Initiative
Patriot Act

Get it?

it's used by GOP as an insult -- while a patriot never is, so it's a least slightly curious. The article about her in the New York Times was sort of almost intriguing although it is quite likely, of course, that she is another Marilyn Quayle.

Why you ask....the repugs don't want it overturned...never have never will...7 of the 9 judges on the SC were put there by the R. So why is it still the law of the land? Because it is their rallying cry, it keeps the money flowing and the sheep voting. He's pro RvW, or doesn't care one way or the other. Rant over.

Many of those Republican picks, their positions on Roe really was unknown. O'Connor and Souter especially. And the only reason Kennedy is on the court is because the Democrats forced him on, otherwise Bork would have that seat. That really played a big role in Souter being on the court as well. Democrats were in a much stronger position in the Senate in years past and so had more influence on republican picks.

I don't think its as conspiratorial as you suggest. But I do believe that the strategy will not be to overturn Roe all at once. They'll chip away at it a little bit at a time over several decades until it essentially doesn't exist anyhow.

when Bork was borked? Or do you mean prior to that?

I can't remember if Bork came before Scalia or not, before I think, but after he got Borked it took two more nominees before someone was approved. There was another guy even before Kennedy. His name was Ginsberg, no relation to Ruth, and he had to with drawl because it was found out that he smoked pot.

The candidates got more and more moderate each time. Bork was ultra-conservative, Ginsberg was pretty conservative with a libertarian streak, and Kennedy was considered a centrist.

Thats the kind of influence you can have on a president when you control the Senate.

I've been saying this for years. It's a balancing act they perform - they must keep Roe in place while appearing to be doing the opposite so they can peel off a large number of votes from folks who would be with the Dems otherwise. They don't give a rip about Roe beyond using it as a wedge for political purposes. They NEED Roe. Roberts won't overturn it, and Bush knows it.

Roberts walks, talks, and shits quiet obedience to money.

If they can't find vital signs, it's because, philosophically, he's just a human cash register.

In such hands--ching! ching!--rest the hopes and dreams of an allegedly free people.

so many WAPO stories here start out twisting something into something totally contrary. It is exactly his personal history and public record that determine he no closet Souter, not that he is no frothing Scalia. yet they lean, lean, lean and fall over until we get stuck with a toady right wing extremist making horrible decisions. Conservative? It's about extremism in the service of the usual suspects. He is circumspect in his casual comments about important issues? That is more a sign of long term grooming for the judiciary. But God forbid anyone should accuse the GOP of ambition and planning.

Obviously this method of reporting about up and coming dignitaries is so reflexive that even Hitler's judges would pass easy muster.

Axiom. No Souter judges. Axiom: this is not the big prize yet for the Chief Justice. Axiom: he must be a Bush crony, election fixer and RW pleaser. Yet we are supposed to "suspect" he might have a heart of gold hidden among his dreams and lean left when suddenly empowered. That is because Nixon was satisfied with a general level of Conservatism and had to propose people of quality(after the Carswell sodomy disaster). That was long ago. Now they get to choose cronies with the claws of the clan so deeply embedded they cannot even think of straying.

Who was it in Congress who growled, no more Bush judges? Probably the famous anonymous Democrat that AP keeps quoting. Happy thought, quickly deserted. Now they feel compelled by some odd sense of something that escapes me at present to give monsters due consideration for the highest court in the greatest land. What they really don't want anyone to notice is that the oppsoition of Democrats is increasingly irrelevant because of their other surrenders and sucker losses in elections.

is as written in stone without benefit of evidence as the necessity of appointments to AG have been, as Rove has been, as the destruction and abuse of Powell. Bush is predictable and inflexible in these matters. Just because this is not Bernie Kerik some want to sigh with relief. When Bush turns rational and disappoints my easy expectations of him then I'll start giving his appointments the benefit of the doubt.

Now, and every precedent bears me out, they deserve only doubt and should be feared as enemies of the very services they are called to oversee. It is easy to have this relatively blind prejudice because it is rooted in Bush himself, a totally negative record and straight as a pretzel.