Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP: Roberts Gets 'Well Qualified' From ABA (highest rating)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:29 PM
Original message
AP: Roberts Gets 'Well Qualified' From ABA (highest rating)
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 03:43 PM by DeepModem Mom
Roberts Gets 'Well Qualified' From ABA
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Wednesday received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, clearing another hurdle in his path to the nation's highest court.

The rating was revealed as the Senate Judiciary Committee announced its plans for Roberts' Sept. 6 confirmation hearings, which include having the nominee questioned by the 18 senators on the panel for almost an hour each.

This is the fourth time the ABA has rated Roberts. He was designated as well qualified in 2001 when nominated to be an appeals court judge in the District of Columbia and again in 2003 when he was re-nominated and confirmed. He had been rated qualified as an appeals court nominee in 1992, but the Senate never took up that nomination....

***

For more than 50 years the ABA has evaluated the credentials of people chosen for federal judgeships. Supreme Court nominees get the most intensive scrutiny.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050817/ap...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is a losing battle
And one side of me just says let the American people get what they deserve.

I think the Senate Democrats should just vote against him and kind of keep quiet about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yep.
Let the GOoPers pass everything 55-45 and impress upon the voters that if they want protection against idiots, they'll have to take their voting responsibilities more seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. It's Not Lost Yet
It just needs a scandal or a major ethical lapse. Not sure the conflict of interest thing is going to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Giving up is for LOSERS!
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 04:54 PM by jsamuel
:rofl:
Don't take it personally, I just have seen too many Dems giving up when I know this guy is going down. He has done things that are unspeakable. We are just waiting on proof to solidify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironman202 Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. ABA Review: Has he paid his dues? He Has? Highly Recomended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borgnine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. I knew this was a losing battle from the start.
On the surface, Roberts doesn't appear as the raving psychopathic Nazi that a lot would expect Bush to appoint. Yes, Roberts is no good, but appearances are everything.

I think Bush, and the Democrats for that matter, are saving up for the next Supreme Court fight when the gloves will really be off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. of course, there's nothing stopping the spineless from rolling over
again
and again
and again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. No surprise. He's a very smart lawyer and judge. That has nothing
to do with whether his ideology is Borkian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seeminer21 Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. No
He's a moron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Well, I guess if you say so it must be so.
:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. They don't have "baby-eating monster" catagory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pfitz59 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. Roberts is a partisan hack....
with a long history of kissing up to authority! He simply LUUUUVS aristocracy, wealthy, pomp and the Pope! He'll be confirmed....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
13. No surprise there.
I remember when the ABA gave the equivalent of a D to Thomas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
featherman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
14. Reality check
We lost this battle when the Dems lost the Presidency and failed to gain any ground in the Senate and the House in 2004. Roberts IS the new Justice for the next few decades. Barring the proverbial "dead woman or live boy" type of scandal this will happen. And once he is in, that's it...until death.
How these people will shape the Supreme Court over the next 3+ years is a horror show in progress, I know, but there is a an awful inevitability to it. There is no silver lining here. Congress and the Senate and the Presidency can change hands over 2-4 years but the Supreme Court will remain as a Reagan - Bush - Bush legacy for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. This is no surprise. None whatsoever. Because Judge Roberts
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 10:10 PM by TaleWgnDg
.
This is no surprise. None whatsoever.

Because Judge Roberts is very well qualified as a jurist to sit on the SCOTUS bench. Judge Roberts has the highest of the high credentials. Again, it's no surprise that the American Bar Association (ABA), America's premier bar association (of which I am a member btw) would report as such. After all, the ABA doesn't play politics, doesn't demonstrate favoritism, and tries its damnedest to be as objective as is possible whenever rating any potential candidate for SCOTUS. All this despite what George Walker Bush said that he would not call upon nor rely upon ABA recommendations for his SCOTUS nominees. Bush claimed that the ABA was biased in favor of "liberals."

However, all that being said, Roberts' apparent legal theory -- to the far right -- may place the SCOTUS bench "out of balance." So much so that for the next 40 or so years as Roberts sits on SCOTUS and for approximately 50 or years after his death, the SCOTUS may be stuck in a reactionary groove prior to the 1880s!

Yup, Roberts may be the 100-year throw-back that the Republican Party has been seeking since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Now, that's some serious stuff!


Bush "returns" Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal"



.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Question To Legal Minds Out There . . .
What was all that stuff about pink & blue slips, and the ABA. I think it was March or February 2001, about a month or so after asswipe was installed/shoved into the WH that he ended this nearly 50 year tradition. I remember it being a signal that asswipe was going to the hard right. Anybody have more info on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. A "blue slip" is a Senate Judiciary Cmte issue . . . and as for the
Edited on Wed Aug-17-05 10:35 PM by TaleWgnDg
.
A "blue slip" is a Senate Judiciary Cmte issue . . . for example, as a Senate courtesy it has been a Senate tradition that all federal judicial nominees made by the president be "okayed" by each Senator from where the nominees lives. The paper procedure to do so in the Senate was completed on a piece of paper colored blue. Hence the name "blue slip." If a Senator approved of the judicial nominee then s/he would return the "blue slip" with such approval. But if a Senator disapproved of a nominee then the "blue slip" was return as rejected or not returned at all. A rejected "blue slip" meant that the nominee's Senate procedure would not go forward. It would be successfully blocked. I believe it was Senator Orrin Hatch who, as Senate Judiciary Chair, stopped the "blue slip" procedure. I could be wrong. However, it was within this Bush Administration, I believe, that it occurred. Try a google search on it.

As for the ABA issue. George Walker Bush, shortly after his first inauguration, announced that he would not ask for, nor rely upon, any recommendation of the ABA regarding any federal judicial nominee. He stated, or someone from his Administration stated, that the ABA was a "liberal" organization and could not be relied upon to do an objective job. The ABA is well-known for its unbiased, objective research and recommendations of federal judicial nominees for sitting presidents for more than the last 1/2 century.

_______________________________________________
edited to include:

Blue Slip Policy

(Senator Orrin) Hatch has also changed another fundamental Senate rule regarding judicial nominations. In the past, (Senator Orrin) Hatch has been a fervent supporter of the Senates blue slip policy, which has allowed home-state senators who object to a judicial nominee to delay action in the Judiciary Committee by not returning a nominees blue slip to the committee. As American Prospect has noted, it was Hatch, in 1995, who hardened the blue-slip policy to allow a single senator to block a nomination indefinitely. Indeed, Sen. Hatch made his blue slip policy explicit in 1998 by stating on the blue slips themselves that (n)o further proceedings on this nominee will be scheduled until both blue slips have been returned by the nominees home state senators.

Now, however, Hatch has apparently declared a new policy saying that even though a senators decision not to return a blue slip would be given great weight, it would not be allowed to prevent Hatch from moving nominees he wants to move. In other words, says Hatch, we can go ahead with certain nominees where you might have a withheld blue slip. Sen. Barbara Boxer has objected to proceeding on controversial nominee Carolyn Kuhl, but Hatch has scheduled a committee vote on the nomination on Thursday, May 8.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10520



.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Thanks for posting, TaleWgnDg -- a valuable view from an ABA member. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-17-05 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. You're welcome, and thanks for the kudos . . . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Mar 22nd 2017, 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC