Who? John Roberts

I listened to Bush's speech tonight on XM while I was working, and I must say that I wasn't too impressed by him or his Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts.

Bush is a terrible speaker. I also don't understand why he felt the need to address the nation in prime time. All for a Supreme Court nominee? Seems like a bitch much. I think he felt the need to magnify the importance of it. More than likely, because of the Karl Rove story. It's a fake story, not even a real one. But the media will attack anything relating to Bush. That's good entertainment.

The best part was at the end when Bush says "Good Job, Robert", and they sort of both give each other a look like "What now?". Then they start walking, then stop quickly because they realize they left Roberts' wife standing on the side of the podium! So then Bush says "Josie?" And she scurries in the middle of them, walking down the hall. But she left the two kids standing there! She just walked away, after all that, leaving the two children wondering what the fuck is going on. I found it hilarious. Anyways...

As far as I can tell, John Robert is a good pick. I've read some things that worry me, but overall I think he is a fine choice. This guy doesn't have a sterling resume. However, he seems to be the brightest star in the sky when it comes to potential judges. I would also like to clearly state that the article I am using for this post, as well as to form all of my opinions come from Law.com. A non-partisan website, that is simply about all things legal. This article was also written in February. This completely insures that I'm not getting any bias, and that I can fully form my opinion without anyone fucking with it. I hope you all will use this article to form your opinion as well. Stay away from the media reports.

If you were to read this ABC News article, you would be subjecting yourself to a completely slanted point of view. Fuck that. Lets say / this is slanted. This article is this: __ . Seriously. It's pretty pathetic, and ridiculous. Stay away from shit like that, because everyone with the power to publish an article is going to try and stir up shit, and it's important for the public to be properly informed.

First off, let's look at his credentials. Harvard Graduate, Rehnquist law clerk, Deputy Solicitor General, top-flight practitioner at Hogan & Hartson, and as many articles have stated, including the one I cite, the finest oral advocate before the high court in the last decade. I think it's pretty much unanimous, this guy's a fucking genius. Everyone from the President to some highly bias and smearing articles are calling this guy smart. And if the elite media calls someone smart, you'd better believe they're a fucking genius. And this is why I think he's great. Because he has well above average intelligence, and I think that is just what we need in the Supreme Court. Geniuses. I don't care what their politics are.

Check this out though. I find this very interesting, and I bet you will too. This article quotes an anonymous source who is a fellow judge on the D.C. circuit as saying this: "He's a great judge here, but I think we're going to lose him to the Supreme Court". Very interesting, right? This article is 5 months old. I also find it very interesting that John Roberts had a very well prepared speech. The news reports say that George Bush called Roberts around noon today. Very strange. There could be some hidden things here. But to give the benefit of the doubt, I will point out that it's said that he is "the finest oral advocate". So maybe that's why he spoke so well. I don't think so, though.

George HW Bush actually nominated Roberts back in 1992 at the end of his presidency. The Senate ignored the nomination, and waited for Clinton to take office and then he made a new nomination. I find this very strange considering the fact that he hadn't served at a judge at all at the time of his nomination. Very weird. At the time, he was in the Office of the Solicitor General. I don't even know what that is, nor do I care. There are many, many weird occurrences that I will point out.

So after being fucked out of his judicial nomination, he returned to Hogan and became sort of a Supreme Court Specialist. He built a very lucrative practice arguing before the Supreme Court. He argued 39 cases before the Court and won 25 of them. That's pretty goddamn good. But now we hit another very awkward bump in the road.

According to his 2003 financial disclosure forms, Hogan paid Roberts just over 1,000,000. A million. When he dropped down to be a Judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, his pay was lowered to $171,800. What the fuck? Why would any sane individual do this? I just don't get it. I mean, I understand the prestige in serving on the bench, but is it really worth a million a year salary? I doubt it... Which opens up the door for a lot of serious speculation.

However, the article takes a scary turn. "Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action." I really hope this isn't true, and I don't believe it is. The article goes on to quote a friend who clerked with Roberts in 1980 as saying "He is as conservative as you can get." I'm still not worried.

In this fair and accurate Wikipedia entry, Roberts is quoted as saying "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land...There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." This is very important. This is all he has to say for me to approve. For those who don't know, Roe Vs Wade was the landmark case heard by the Supreme Court in 1971 that basically makes the restriction of abortion unconstitutional.

Alright, so now I've established this guy's character and background, I'm just going to skip all the other shit I have about his character and go straight to one of the cases he ruled on. These are very important also. He's talked the talk, and its essential to see if he walks the walk.

"In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights."

That's all you need to know. He'll uphold the law and the constitution. I don't know the background of the law the girl broke, but I assume it has something to do with eating in the subway. I say he's a good choice, and I look forward to seeing the Democrats butcher his good character.