John Roberts

[ok2bclever]

Yes actually, it basically does.

That isn't to say they were not also qualified.

You are not telling me you think any president regardless of political party didn't choose a man (well ok, a couple of times a woman) that would favor his views within the constraints of the qualifications or get him needed support of some "group", do you?

If it was an appointment position it would be far more blatant, but as it is a nomination that has to gain a majority approval of congress it has to be more subtle or more of a compromise.

 

[ezrider]

No I wouldn't tell you that. But that doesn't mean that Roberts' take on where the court should go in the future lines up as well as with what Bush would consider ideal compared to some of the other candidates on the short list for nomination. And from what I've seen watching his "answers" to the Senate commitee, I don't know how anybody watching could gain insight as to how he will rule once he gets there. I'm hearing a few out there that seem to be just swept away by watching his testimony, yet they don't know how he will rule since his testimony yields few if no answers to what he was asked.

<font color="0000ff">If it was an appointment position it would be far more blatant, but as it is anomination that has to gain a majority approval of congress it has to be more subtle or more of a compromise.</font>

Well I'm not so sure it's not an appointment position by default anyway since the Republicans have the clear majority easily in Senate votes. That's a big part of why he doesn't risk saying anymore than he absolutely has to. The only real risk he'd have is if he said something that caused anyone in the majority that he already has behind him to reconsider. He's playing it the safest way he can. The best way to not draw unwanted attention towards what he says is to say nothing. A good strategy and for the most part he's executed it pretty well.

 

[ok2bclever]

Personally, I believe bush believes roberts may line up more with his own personal philosophies than with many of the more severely right leaning republicans, but still within the pouting acceptabilities of the resigned to the math realities democrats.

He will be confirmed for sure and while "no comment" was his answer in reality to most of the pertinent questions of contention it wasn't unexpected or even a wrong strategy considering.

I see him as voting pretty much along the lines of his predecessor.

The replacement for o'connor will be much more significant in deciding if there is going to be a fundamental change in the direction of future decisions such as overturning a woman's right to choice, etc

 

[ezrider]

Yes I would tend to agree. He's a Rehnquist clone but without the smoking habit

I also think the next one could be a real fight if it's a pick that is too far out of the mainstream. That could hurt not only the court but politicians from both parties, so the scrutiny will certainly be coming from all directions. A Sandra Day clone I think would be the safest path taken for her replacement as well.