Log in

No account? Create an account
Who, me? [userpic]

John Roberts appointment

July 20th, 2005 (09:46 am)

current mood: angry

What amazes me is that Bush is able to stand up and claim that Roberts has "superb credentials", even though he's been a judge for only two years. Even a plumber needs a four-year apprenticeship; why would we apply a lower standard to Supreme Court Justices?


(Deleted comment)
Posted by: Alexx Kay (alexx_kay)
Posted at: July 20th, 2005 04:14 pm (UTC)
Some homework help


(Deleted comment)
Posted by: Who, me? (metageek)
Posted at: July 21st, 2005 12:10 am (UTC)

In fairness, he was a practicing attorney for years before that.

The problem is that experience as an attorney is very different from experience as a judge. Attorneys are expected to take sides; judges are expected to be neutral.

how will he get such an extremist confirmed?

And now we know: by picking someone who hasn't got enough of a track record to give away his positions.

Posted by: C. Virtue (cvirtue)
Posted at: July 20th, 2005 08:26 pm (UTC)

I remarked to Pamela that the appointment may well get the barking dogs to stop chasing Rove, and instead chase this guy.

Posted by: ((Anonymous))
Posted at: July 25th, 2005 10:30 pm (UTC)
Older justices

Keep in mind that less than 50 years ago it was common, even typical, to appoint a non-judge. Former senators were a popular appointment for a while. Taft even became a justic after he left office.

Posted by: Who, me? (metageek)
Posted at: July 25th, 2005 10:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Older justices

(a) Best practices change. 50 years ago it was common, even typical, to send whites and blacks to different schools.

(b) 50 years ago, lifespans were shorter; someone with long experience as a judge would be too old to be effective. Today, it's possible to find people with 20 years of experience on the bench who can be expected to serve another 20 years on the Supreme Court.

7 Read Comments