Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SCOTUS Nominee Roberts -> Former Energy Industry Lobbyist

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 » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:52 PM
Original message
SCOTUS Nominee Roberts -> Former Energy Industry Lobbyist
http://courtinginfluence.net/nominee.php?nominee_id=55

http://courtinginfluence.net/stories.php?id=7

"Another Bush judicial appointee with experience representing the mining industry is John G. Roberts, Jr., a former colleague of George Miller's at the Hogan & Hartson law and lobbying firm. Roberts was one of the co-authors of Millers amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Associations challenge to the government ban on mountaintop removal. In 2003, Roberts was confirmed to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where earlier this year he ruled against environmentalists who were pushing for more restrictive government regulations of copper smelters--many of whom are members of the National Mining Association that Roberts once represented. As a lobbyist in the 1990s, Roberts worked on behalf of the peanut industry, pushing federal legislation that maintained government subsidies which the GAO estimated cost consumers $500 million a year. Agricultural and mining interests are often involved in regulatory cases that come before the DC Circuit Court where Roberts now sits."

----

I am so not surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. more...
* In April 2000, Washington DC lawyer John Roberts filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the federal 4th Circuit Court to block a lawsuit filed by West Virginia citizens opposed to the coal industry's destructive "mountaintop removal" practice. Two years later, Roberts was nominated by President Bush and confirmed to the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2004, as a judge on that court, Roberts ruled against environmentalists who were pushing for more restrictive government regulations over copper smelters--many of whose owners are members of the National Mining Association--that emit toxic lead and arsenic pollutants.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=9...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hmm. A conservative GOP tool. Who'd a thunk?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viking12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. More bad news....he's an advocate of expanding definiton of 'takings'
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:41 PM by Viking12
Clearly a judicial activist.....

In the first article, Roberts offered his view of the Takings Clause, which requires that the government give just compensation for takings of private property. Roberts claimed that courts trying to ascertain its meaning, have not been significantly aided by the
words of the clause, which are incapable of being given simple, clear-cut meaning Indeed, the very phrase just compensation suggests that the language of the clause must be informed by changing norms of justice." After rejecting on various grounds several interpretations of the clause traditionally used by courts i.e. physical intrusion onto an owners property as anachronistic in a largely non-agrarian society, noxious use as too value-laden, and Justice Holmes 1922 diminution of value test as too vague, Roberts argued for a constrained model based on a utility-based test proposed by Professor Frank Michelman. Under that model, parties made unwhole or insecure by regulation should be compensated accordingly.

The Takings Clause, Developments in the Law Zoning, 91 Harvard Law Review 1462, 1464 (1978).

In his second article, Roberts took on the Contract Clause, which provides that, No stateshall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Roberts argued that this clause should be interpreted to protect corporations from legislation that might increase
their obligations to their workers, such as pension protection, and not, as Justice Brennan had asserted, to protect individuals from decisions by states that nullified rights by reneging on contracts. Roberts criticized Justice Brennans plain language interpretation
of the Contract Clause, arguing instead that, Constitutional protections, however, should not depend merely on a strict construction that may allow technicalities of form to dictate consequences of substance.42 Here, as in his Takings Clause article, Roberts seems unafraid to reject a strict construction approach to constitutional interpretation to reach results that favor corporations and wealthy property owners. In both articles, Roberts non-literal interpretation of the clause seems to fly in the face of President Bushs pledge to nominate judges who would strictly interpret the law, not make it.

Comment, Contract Clause Legislative Alteration of Private Pension Agreements, 92 Harvard Law Review 86 (1978).

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John...
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 Thu Dec 25th 2014, 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy 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