Wednesday, August 03, 2005

 

Confirmed: Roberts is a Douche

Earlier, I speculated that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is very likely a douchebag. At the time, few people knew anything about Roberts, but I figured it was a safe guess given that W only nominates douchebags. Since then, additional information has been released providing insight into exactly what kind of douchebag John Roberts is.

The general consensus is that, ideologically, Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor. He's the new Rehnquist. During his time on the White House counsel's staff from 1982 to 1986, Roberts consistently advocated for the more conservative side of issues, and sometimes took "positions even more conservative than those of his prominent superiors." During this period, Roberts advocated for:He also exposed his frighteningly ignorant understanding of affirmative action, writing that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates." Affirmative action programs require no such thing. As the National Organization of Women explains, "under the law as written in Executive Orders and interpreted by the courts, anyone benefitting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid job or educational qualifications."

Frighteningly, the White House is refusing to release a number of other important sets of documents, including Roberts’ tax returns and relevant papers from his tenure as deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush. Sure, we don't know that the White House is covering up anything bad by witholding thise papers, but it certainly raises the question as to what exactly they're trying to hide.

Outside his ideology, Roberts has proven himself a liar. Here he is claiming not to remember whether or not he was a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, even though he's listed as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter in the 97-98 directory. And here he is, lying to Coretta Scott King.

But what really makes him a primo douchebag in my book, is that he was an accomplice to the theft of the 2000 election. Miami Herald reporter Marc Caputo learned from Ted Cruz, a policy advisor to the Bush election campaign in 2000, and now the Texas solicitor general, that:
Roberts was one of the first names he thought of while he and another attorney drafted the Republican legal dream team of litigation ‘lions' and ‘800-pound gorillas,' which ultimately consisted of 400 attorneys in Florida.

Until now, Gov. Jeb Bush and others involved in the election dispute could recall almost nothing of Roberts’ role, except for a half-hour meeting the governor had with Roberts. Cruz said Roberts was in Tallahassee helping the Bush camp for ’’a week to 10 days,’’ and that his help was important, though Cruz said it is difficult to remember specifics five years after the sleep-depriving frenetic pace of the 2000 recount.

[...]

Roberts traveled from his Washington office at Hogan & Hartson to Tallahassee to lend advice and help polish legal briefs. Later, Roberts participated in a dress rehearsal to prepare the Bush legal team for the U.S. Supreme Court.
In short, Roberts went down on his own dime to make sure that the votes in Florida would not be counted, and that the election for president would be decided by the courts. Later analysis showed that a full state-wide vote count would have resulted in a win for Al Gore. But John Roberts evidently thinks democracy is too good for Florida's citizens.

Unfortunately, all this complaining is really good for nothing. Because our good-for-nothing Democrats in Congress are going to approve the nomination with little fight. Apparently being a right-wing ideologue, liar, hater of democracy, and all-around douchebag are no longer disqualifying characteristics to get onto the Supreme Court.

Comments:
Man, where do I even start here..

1) Before I even get to the other things...the 'theft' of the 2000 election? By whom? Because the courts didn't allow a third count of the votes? The electoral college worked against you, dude. Get over it, it's been five years.

2) I really resent the implication that the Federalist Society is 'ultra-conservative'...when its actually an organization that encourages academic thought and constitutional defense of conservative ideas. Obviously, since they advocate defending belief with more than ideology, they must be ultra-conservative. Obviously, since they don't agree with Nordy, they are "outside the political mainstream."

3) Here is my biggest problem, though: why are we talking about Roberts' opinions and briefs when he was a White House/DOJ counsel? He was a lawyer working for his client. And are we surprised that he was more of a hardliner than his superiors? He was a young attorney trying to make a name for himself. Huge shocker there.

Critique his rulings on the DC Circuit, prepare questions to drill him on when he comes up next month before the Judiciary Committee...but until then, you are really picking up the scraps here, Nordy.
 
1) tell it to the 50,000 "felons" on the scrub list. Tell it to the voters of the state, who by all accounting measures actually voted for Gore. If you don't think democracy was perverted in the 2000 election, I'm not sure what issues we can have honest debate on.

I'll be back tomorrow to respond to the rest.
 
"By all accounting measures"...except for two machine counts as described in the state laws of Florida.

As far as the peversion of democracy...I have plenty of problems with the electoral college, and I do think that we should move to a popular election of the President. That doesn't change the fact that under the Constitution, Bush won the 2000 election.

You know what really bothers me? The fact that had it gone the other way...had Bush won the popular but Gore won the electoral...we wouldn't be hearing dick from people like you about the perversion of democracy.
 
Bosco, as much as I appreciate the implication that I'm either stupid or a hypocrite, you missed my point, and my finger pointing is warranted. The basis of Nordy's complaints has less to do with the 'protection of democracy' or 'constitutional protection' than simple partisan whining...and attempts to mask it as otherwise are offensive to me.
 
Sorry, accidentally submitted before completing my thought...

As I said, complaints about the 2000 election ARE about partisan bickery, and Bosco, you are absolutely right that Republicans would have complained in my scenario. And I would be just as pissed at them.

What gets me going is the attempt to paint the situation as more than it is. It's not a threat to democracy. It's not the undoing of our republic. It's not criminal. It was the operation of our electoral system; thus, one side won and the other lost. And I think its insulting to continue referring to it as more than an electoral event.
 
The scrubbing of 50,000 "felons" from the voter roles had nothing to do with the proper functioning of our democracy, or the electoral college, or anything else. It was illegal. It was criminal. It was a perversion of democracy.

The decision of the Supreme Court to appoint a winner, rather than counting the votes had nothing to do with the proper functioning of our democracy, or the electoral college. It was a case of partisans abandoning their past legal stances to put forth a partisan opinion, oppointing an unelected president.

The problems posed by voting machines, problems with for some reason always disproportionally affect minority districts, have nothing to do with the proper functioning of our democracy, or the electoral college.

The Florida law requiring felons from other states to request clemency from Jeb Bush has nothing to do with the proper functioning of our democracy, or the electoral college.

Also, the two machine recounts you speak of...were they ever carried out state-wide? If my memory serves me right, I believe the answer is no.
 
No, they were not carried out statewide...by decision of the Secretary of State of Florida, who had authority over the execution of statewide elections under the Florida Constitution. By upholding her decision, the five justices in the majority on Bush v. Gore recognized that the federal government could not interfere with the legal operation of elections in a sovereign state.

In other words, the system worked exactly as it was designed to work. As Ned says...if you have a problem, have a problem with the system, not with the execution.
 
I tend to agree with Ned that the Supreme Court's decision, while not exactly right, was perhaps necessary at the time (I think Richard Posner was the first to make this argument).

But I think eirishis' interpretation of ehat happened is pretty novel to say the least. If state sovereignty had been the issue, then of course Bush would have lost; after all the Florida Supreme Court had interpreted Florida law (i.e., fulfilled its sovereign function) to require a recount of the votes. The US Supreme Court held that violated the Equal Protection Clause, in a decision that was notorioulsy "limited to the present circumstances."
 
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list
Scrub list

If I say it enough times, maybe the theft apologists will address it.
 
Also, partly because I like to see Ned's face turn red and partly because it's true, I should point out that the electoral college is a disgraceful anachronism and the guy who won by a half million votes should have been president regardless of what happened in Florida.
 
Nordy, at risk of sounding dumb, I don't know what you are talking about wrt to the scrub list, hence I can't address it. And in answering this, please link to a reputable, neutral site, rather than one of your usual links to TPM or thinkprogress.

And once again...I agree that the electoral college is a screwy system, and I support efforts to change it. But shockingly, I don't remember that being seriously proposed by Democrats post 2000...does anyone else? Further proof that this was partisan whining, rather than true complaints about constitutional structure.
 
And wrt to the constitutionality question...yeah, I screwed the pooch on that one. That's what happens sometimes when you're blogging without a net.
 
I like the electoral college. Lets say radicalism (and that is a big if) swept the nation in a short period of time and the nation was split 50-50. A person could not side with how the state voted and go with the less extreme candidate...right? right? i hate the people. Bring on the constitutional monarchy. I want to by Duke of YURMOM.
 
and M. Butler logs in for no man
 
Ned, genius picture! Those dudes were the pride of North Carolina once the original Siamese twins ended up kicking the bucket.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?