Shouldn't we really expect better judgment from a judge?
Supremely Base »
Boston Herald
On the church steps the judge paused for a second, then looked directly into the lens and said, "To my critics, I say, Vaffanculo" (fuck you in Italian ... it's actually far more florid than that) punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin. He later denied he had done what he is pictured doing above.
Ill-Chosen Words »
Philadelphia Enquirer
Scalia rejected the suggestion that terrorism suspects held in Guantanamo, Cuba, had rights under the U.S. Constitution or international law. To think they might warrant a jury trial, he said, is "crazy."
Irresponsible Idiot Gasbag »
LA Times
One day before trial to begin on Guantanamo Prisoner, Scalia tells Newsweek the Constitution does not protect foreigners held there.

Rehnquist clerk
Ken Starr deputy
Reagan Department of Justice
Bush Sr. Department of Justice
Against merely mentioning the word abortion
Against environmental regulations
Approves jailing 12 year old girls for eating french fries
Bestowed Bush with ultimate power over Guantanamo Prisoners' fate ... just one week before his Supreme Court nomination
(How about that? What a coincidence!)

Meet John Roberts »
Adele M. Stan / The American Prospect

A first-class lawyer with a sense of humor. Too bad he’s a threat to women’s rights -- and the Constitution.

... Note that we’re not talking here about whether the organization in question can administer an abortion; we’re talking about talk, or the mandatory lack thereof.

... felt compelled to co-author an amicus curiae brief in support of an organization (Operation Rescue) bent on terrorizing and demonizing pregnant women.

... Roberts’ anti-abortion ties don’t end with him, either. His wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, served for a time as an executive of the cleverly named group Feminists for Life, the entity responsible for the slick ad campaign, Women Deserve Better (Than Abortion), which targets college-age women.

... He has shown himself to be ill disposed to affirmative action, and he’s in the same league as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales when it comes to sanctioning the lack of legal protection for prisoners deemed “enemy combatants.” He’s also drawn the ire of environmentalists with a decision to narrow the reach of the Endangered Species Act.

What's at stake:
A list of 5-4 rulings in which Sandra Day O'Connor was the decisive justice that may be in danger of being overturned »

The Stakes in Roberts's Nomination »
Bruce Shapiro

Judge John Roberts is a white male who has spent his entire adult life in Washington. Those facts themselves mean nothing, but they do beg a question: What could be so compelling about Judge Roberts as a Supreme Court candidate that the White House was willing to forswear all claims on ethnic diversity and all geographical political advantage, not to mention the express desire of Laura Bush and countless other women to see a nominee of their gender?

The President has also, after a long search, managed to find a Supreme Court candidate who in many ways looks remarkably like himself: born in the Northeast (in Roberts's case, Buffalo), heir to old-line power (his father was a US Steel executive), moved to a red state (Indiana), Ivy League-educated (Harvard, Harvard Law). From the day of his graduation from law school, Judge Roberts has held no job except those secured through conservative Republican patronage.

Oy. It's Roberts »
E.J. Graff

Former Rehnquist clerk and Ken Starr deputy, worked in the Reagan and H.W. Bush Departments of Justice, and has argued against Roe and against environmental regulations. And he has been discreet enough that he might just get confirmed.

Roberts Gave GOP Advice in Bush / Gore Presidential Recount »
Miami Herald

John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, played a role in the chaotic, 36-day period following the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Media Ignore "Fascist" Play »
Thom Hartmann / Common Dreams

While everybody is worried about abortion rights and corporate power ... corporatist "conservatives" are salivating at the opportunity to pack the Court with judges who will further erode the rights of communities and increase the power of multinational corporations and the super-rich in America.

This is more than Left vs. Right »
John Nichols / The Nation

With O'Connor's exit, the court will move in one of two directions. No, not right or left. With O'Connor out, the court will either go backward or forward ... America could return to a time when the Supreme Court was the nation's primary barrier to social and economic progress.

Ugliness To Come »
David Corn / The Nation

... In any event, the Democrats and progressives may be placed in the position of having to oppose an experienced jurist whose opinions they do not like on policy grounds. They should fight such a nominee vigorously, and they should be upfront about their reasons. Rather than label that person an "extremist," they ought to argue that the Senate ought not to confirm a nominee who is likely to vote to curtail or eliminate abortion rights, to favor corporate polluters over consumers, or to restrict the federal government's ability to advance social justice. The "extremist" strategy, I fear, is worn out and ineffective.

Roberts and the National Security State »
Mike Whitney

Democrats may be chirping about the "civility and intelligence" of Bush's new candidate, but Roberts is a judicial-wolf in sheep's clothing. He's already shown his eagerness to rubber-stamp the expanded powers of the Emperor-in-chief and we can assume that he won't hesitate to legislate from the bench. His place on the high-court will solidify the coup that began in year 2000; shifting the tectonic plates of American political life to a hard-right position. The cabal in Washington is on a fast-track for removing the last, feeble protections that safeguard the citizen from the intrusive powers of the government. Roberts is just the latest brick in the wall of the National Security State.

Who is More Pathetic: The Media or the Democrats? »
David Sirota

Supreme Court appointments must be postponed »
Columbus Free Press

Such decisions are too momentous to make amidst the chaos and crisis that is today's United States.

The Bush regime has now allowed the worst terrorist attack in US history, and the worst weather-born disaster. Both catastrophes were entirely avoidable.

There are also serious questions about the competency of this particular administration. No other presidency has been marred by equivalent failures to respond to the needs of a population so seriously at risk ... Like an automobile careening out of control, we must now question the sanity and competency of the driver...and decide what to do.

Roberts, Without Illusions »
The Nation

As his confirmation hearings approach, we already know a great deal about John G. Roberts Jr. He's ethically challenged and unfit to serve on the Supreme Court.

Just too conservative »
Erwin Chemerinsky / LA Times

After spending the last month reading countless briefs and memos written by John G. Roberts Jr., it is clear that he would very likely change the law dramatically in key areas such as privacy rights, separation of church and state and racial justice. Democrats need to oppose Roberts for the same reasons they fought against Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. in 1969, Harold Carswell in 1970, Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991.

A Charter Member of the Reagan Vanguard »
Washington Post

Roberts was part of the vanguard of a conservative political revolution in civil rights, advocating new legal theories and helping enforce the Reagan administration's effort to curtail the use of courts to remedy racial and sexual discrimination.

He wrote vigorous defenses, for example, of the administration's version of a voting rights bill, opposed by Congress, that would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He challenged arguments by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in favor of busing and affirmative action. He described a Supreme Court decision broadening the rights of individuals to sue states for civil rights violations as causing "damage" to administration policies, and he urged that legislation be drafted to reverse it. And he wrote a memo arguing that it was constitutionally acceptable for Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil rights cases.

Roberts Papers Being Delayed »
Wahington Post

Thrown on the defensive by recent revelations about Supreme Court nominee Roberts' legal work, White House aides are delaying the release of tens of thousands of documents from the Reagan administration to give themselves time to find any new surprises before they are turned into political ammunition by Democrats.

Five Big Issues »
The American Prospect

Increasingly, Roberts is looking like a reliable conservative on the issues of the day ... would make a real difference on the Court, in a wide variety of areas, and he would push it consistently to the right.

Just Say No »
The American Prospect

Roberts’ record demonstrates that he would try to restrict Congress' ability to protect endangered species from extinction and suggests that he would imperil efforts to defend the environment in other respects. His scant jurisprudential record makes it unclear exactly how far he’d go in construing the commerce clause so as to strike down popular and effective regulatory schemes aimed at protecting the rights of workers and consumers, but it's clear that he’d do so to at least some extent. His decisions indicate that he’d seek to erect procedural barriers to victims of injustice by using the federal courts to redress injuries in cases where they might well prevail if they could get their cases heard. It indicates that he’d refuse to act as a check on efforts by the executive branch to use its national-security authority in abusing ways. And, despite efforts to muddy the waters on this topic, it makes it pretty clear that he’d try to open the door to the criminalization of abortion and, perhaps, the further restrictions on the right to privacy.

This is bad stuff. Exactly how bad it's hard to say. But there's simply no case from the liberal point of view for believing that Roberts would improve the Court in any respect, and many reasons to think he’d make it worse.

Forging discord »
David Podvin

The Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts is a deathblow aimed directly at the liberal movement. Roberts is not a jurist in any meaningful sense of the term. He is a ruthless political operative who was groomed to pervert the legal system by Kenneth Starr and was instrumental in helping George W. Bush steal the presidency. He has devoted his life to advancing the conservative cause by misapplying the law. This historic judicial appointment wasn't a hurried selection designed to divert attention from Karl Rove's treason. Roberts has been painstakingly vetted for the job of eliminating dissent in America.

He is the right wing's wet dream who will align with other extremists to repeal the economic and social progress of modernity. Liberal blood should run cold as a result of the enthusiastic support he enjoys from this nation's robber barons, theocrats, misogynists, racists, and homophobes.

Roberts and the Smirking Man »
Matthew Rothschild / The Progressive

Practically from the day he left Harvard Law School, Roberts has donated his brain to the Republican Party and to corporate interests.

... On reproductive rights, the environment, disability rights, media reform, corporate power, and criminal justice, Roberts’s conservative colors shine through. Democratic Senators are under no obligation to confirm Roberts and to fold in front of the smirking man.

Alito
... honest?
... slick marketing?

Alito and Abuse of Power »
The Progressive
Alito's nomination is part of the Bush Administration's assault on the balance of powers.

In a nutshell:
Fact Sheet on Supreme Court Nominee Alito: 15 Years of Pushing the Law Sharply to the Right »
Alliance for Justice
click here to view and / or download the pdf file of this fact sheet
Alito’s America »
Think Progress – a concise points list of the extreme right wing activist judge ... not a pretty picture.

In case you were wondering ...
Alito Seen as Ally by Businesses »
Bloomberg
U.S. business groups, already cheered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s appointment, anticipate getting another ally in Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr.

The Sum of Alito Fears »
Grist Magazine
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has enviromentalists worried.

It's Not up to the Court »
Howard Zinn
Listening to pieces of Roberts's confirmation hearings was enough to induce despair: the joking with the candidate, the obvious signs that, whether Democrats or Republicans, these are all members of the same exclusive club. Roberts's proper "credentials," his "nice guy" demeanor, his insistence to the Judiciary Committee that he is not an "ideologue" (can you imagine anyone, even Robert Bork or Dick Cheney, admitting that he is an "ideologue"?) were clearly more important than his views on equality, justice, the rights of defendants, the war powers of the President.

The rights of working people, of women, of black people have not depended on decisions of the courts. Like the other branches of the political system, the courts have recognized these rights only after citizens have engaged in direct action powerful enough to win these rights for themselves.

No Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, will stop the war in Iraq, or redistribute the wealth of this country, or establish free medical care for every human being. Such fundamental change will depend, the experience of the past suggests, on the actions of an aroused citizenry, demanding that the promise of the Declaration of Independence-an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-be fulfilled.

Harriet Miers
... never mind.

An interesting side story here is what ever happened to the righteous rights' previously incessant demands for an up or down vote on all nominees?

If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
Charles Krauthammer
conservative hack extraordinaire

Harriet Miers: A Sucker Punch
Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere if Harriet Miers becomes justice ... but corporate interests will flourish in a Roberts-Miers Court »
AlterNet

... the last thing the Republican leadership wants to do is overturn Roe. It would mark the beginning of the end for them and they know it. Where would the GOP be without the specter of godless, baby-killing liberals keeping its base awake at night?

(Bush is installing a corporate dream team on the Supreme Court. ... we shouldn't sink all our) time, energy and money into the battle over Roe and plum forget to find out how Miers might rule on the big questions of corporate rights and responsibilities, as well as on labor issues, the separation of powers, consumer rights, the environment and all the rest.

Miers And Roberts:
A CEO's Dream Team »
TomPaine.com

For those trying to make sense of President Bush’s decision to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, here’s a question: What do Miers and John Roberts have in common, besides the fact that they were both nominated to the Supreme Court?

Answer: Both had substantial careers as corporate lawyers before being nominated.

... you would have to go back to 1971, when President Nixon nominated corporate lawyer Lewis F. Powell Jr. to the Supreme Court, to find a justice who came to the court with that much experience in corporate law. Powell, of course, went on to become one of the most pro-corporate justices in modern Supreme Court history, helping to expand the legal rights of “free enterprise," especially when it came to commercial speech.

One lesson we should have learned from the Bush presidency by now is that while social and intellectual conservatives are nice to have on your side, it is the large corporations that write the checks. And if you can throw a bone to those other groups now and then (like, say, coming out for a gay marriage amendment that has no chance of passage, or giving elegant speeches about your Christian faith), you can keep them in line.

But if you look closely at Bush’s record, you’ll see plenty of words about family values and religion and the virtues of small government, but plenty of actions on behalf of things like tort reform and bankruptcy reform.

By nominating not one, but now two Supreme Court justices with formative experiences defending the rights of large corporations to be free of pesky regulations and bothersome responsibilities to workers and consumers, Bush has demonstrated where his true loyalties lie. Unfortunately for the American people, it is, once again, not with them.

Miers Disavows Saying Constitution Protects Privacy »
Bloomberg

The Nomination of a Nobody »
The American Prospect

The nomination of a nobody ... absolutely lacking every possible qualification ... like Harriet Miers has now vaulted the process of naming a Supreme Court justice onto the Feydeau plateau of farce. Does Miers, who has never judged anything, not even the liposuctioned rumps of Arabian horses, deserve the appointment? No one really believe she does, including the president, who had to screw on his patented hardworkin’ mask when he recited her achievements, which include volunteering for “Meals on Wheels.” By the Harriet Miers standard, that sweaty guy with the comb-over at H&R Block who once did a pretty fair job on my taxes should be secretary of the Treasury.

Crony Constitutionalism »
The Nation

There is still much to learn about Miers, but it's already clear that her nomination is an act of crony constitutionalism at a time when Bush's agency-packing schemes have led FEMA and Homeland Security to disaster.

neighborsforpeaceandjustice.org