Absent a political upheaval causing turbulence equal to that of Hurricane Katrina, John Roberts will be confirmed by the United States Senate as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on September 22. With a few notable exceptions, the Democrats have been as befuddled about this nomination as they have been about war and torture in Iraq, increasing the minimum wage,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (26)Page 1 of 1 pagesHas any congressman ever had the thought of indexing the minimum wage to either: 1) inflation; or even better 2) congressional pay?
Put it on automatic pilot and forget it. Sure beats letting minimum wage stagnate for years. . .
Posted by wolf on Sep 19, 2005 at 9:41 AM Racial profiling: its time has come.
Why check the pretty women at airports so carefully? Is it because they are cute? Given that 90% of terrorists are Arab men, shouldn’t we spend 90% of our efforts checking them?
IF 50% of violent crimes are committed by a particular (identifiable) ethnic group, lets spend that proportion of effort checking members of that group.
The idea is to put the amount of effort in the optimal place. Just math, no big deal.
Posted by wolf on Sep 19, 2005 at 9:46 AM “James Madison envisioned a Bill of Rights that countenances young girls being carted away by undercover police officers for eating French fries”
Did they have french fries back then?
Hey wait. She was *black* - doesn’t that make it a *racial* issue? (Just kidding - it was really a sexist issue!)
Posted by wolf on Sep 19, 2005 at 9:54 AM If the minimum wage were indexed for inflation, it would be around $8.50 today. Just shows the casual observer the relative purchasing power that the 6% of the U.S. workforce has making the minimum wage. The federal poverty line is just under $20,000. A person working full-time (40 hrs/wk) at minimum wage would earn about $10,700/yr. The numbers speak for themselves. What say you, scorp?
Back to Roberts. He is a Scalia-Thomas clone wrapped in Souter’s clothing. He refused to answer the majority of questions he was confronted with, so the Senate Judidiary committee will be making an uninformed vote on this guy if they just based their decision on his testimony.
Fianl point: I hate the rancor by the right against “judicial activism” when their peers on the Supreme Court committed the GREATEST act of judicial activism since Brown vs. Board of Education minus the positive after effects when it voted 5-4 to halt the recounts in Florida after the 2000 election, essentially giving the presidency to the loser, GWB, and the rest is history. The five justices who committed this horrendous act: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, and Kennedy, all range from moderate-conservative to bark-at-the-moon rightwing. They explicitly stated in their majority opinion that this decision could not be used to set a precedent based on their ridiculous overextension of the due-process clause in the 14th amendment. Their line of logic was that the fact that there was not a uniform ballot counting procedue in Florida that it violatd the 14th amendment. Such a ruling could have been used to invalidate election results in nearly every state of the union, so the majority took the unprecedented act of stating that this decision could not set a precedent. I say we picket these enforcers of autocracy day-and-night until they admit they usurped democracy in favor of their “chosen son.”
Posted by Liberal on Sep 19, 2005 at 2:02 PM Are 90% of terrorists Arab men? Even if that group is over-represented, those who have violent designs can simply switch tactics if they detect a standing pattern of security checking that focuses on a particular demographic. Of course it’s unwise to let Arab men into airports without a decent check. It’s unwise to let anyone in without a check. The first rule of security is to make oneself or one’s institution a difficult target, for anyone with evil intent.
Airport security should simply be beefed up and more passengers frisked overall. More uniformed and plain-clothes personnel, more dogs trained to sniff out explosive compounds, more opening up of suitcases, and more thorough pat-downs. Add circulation of watch-lists with photos included, shared among all countries’ law enforcement agencies. If the people on the watch-lists are Arabs, pull them over. If they’re sexy 20-old-blondes, same. Some may well be middle aged male palefaces.
I’m a middle aged male paleface myself, and I’ve been frisked and had my luggage visually inspected at virtually every airport I’ve been through, which is a lot (although most of these were outside the US, but it’s happened there plenty as well). It’s fine with me, it’s what I want them to do. When I’ve been through airports where there’s less vigilance, I’ve been extremely nervous. It’s nothing to show up an hour earlier to get through the process, it doesn’t even require that much extra time. Just part of traveling, like paying for parking or standing in line at passport control. Ordinary.
It’s simply going to require investment of resources and flexible, creative thinking about how terrorists could exploit weakness or rigidity in a security system. Emphasize the investment part.
Even if there’s no such thing as true, perfect safety (and there isn’t), you can still make your patch a difficult target.
Additionally, I have some concern about rail traffic somewhat more than air traffic, insofar as security. Thousands of miles of track, virtually impossible to patrol more often than occasionally, especially in the deserts of the West, but also including crowded urban environments. Tempting for bad guys.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 19, 2005 at 11:12 PM Ooops, got off-topic. Aint the first who posts here to do so.
Roberts is a virtual shoe-in, he’d have to be struck by lightning to avoid confirmation. The question is, how to deal with the changing political and cultural climate in America? How to not get swallowed up by energetic arch-conservatism?
I’m thinking that will be the next main challenge for those of us who don’t swim well in the mainstream of American middle-class political culture: To figure out how to preserve our right to be who we really are and how to gain credibility among those who are mainstreamers. That’ll be a challenge all right, especially now that Prez Bush will have had such a profound, enduring effect upon the SC by the time he departs from office.
I’d like to see some ITT articles devoted to that sort of anticipation, since it looks highly likely to take place, even if the midterm elections next year are lackluster for the GOP.
Posted by Kuya on Sep 19, 2005 at 11:24 PM The rich are the only ones who are crying about being held up and searched at the airport. The rest of us poor slobs are used to it by now. We are used to a lot of tedious and useless rituals. Add airport searches to the list, cause they are not going away. Besides, most of us don’t fly more than once a year anyway. Why is it a major catastrophe when a rich white man is searched at an airport? Because rich white men are used to getting away with anything! Nobody likes being indiscriminately judged, but being discriminately judged feels even worse. There are a lot of things that we as human beings living in a civilization are forced to deal with. You ought to be asking that all airport security workers be sexy ladies. Maybe that would make it more bearable!
Posted by kylecircle on Sep 20, 2005 at 4:42 AM Is it just me,or does anyone else feel dread when listening to Bob,I mean John,Roberts dance around any of the questions presented to him?
This reminds me of 2000 and the Bush campaign.Bush ran as a supposed moderate,a compassionate conservative,and look what we got once he was"elected"--unbridled reactionary politics and the worst mixture of business and government since the 1880’s.
John Roberts strikes me,like the Bush Team did in 2000,as one who wants the job so badly he will do and say anything to get it.Quite often,people with that mindset do not have anything beneficial planned when they assume power.I’m counting on Roberts taking us back to 1955.
Posted by wwoods on Sep 20, 2005 at 6:40 AM hey kylecircle - is it just rich white guys that are spoiled and whining or rich people in general (are you aware that there are rich non-whites?)?
Funny thing about being poor. Only 2% of people are poor for 2 straight years, but a much larger fraction are poor for a few months at a time (25% or so). Hey, i was poor 20 years ago, but am “rich” now (that is, i have more money than i need, though admittedly my needs are quite modest, even with several children to support).
In any case, i am definitely for making all airport security workers sexy ladies! WooHoo! And lets fly on Hooters airline (did you know that Hooters had an airline - it operates out of Atlanta.)
Last thing - wwoods wrote “ John Roberts strikes me,like the Bush Team did in 2000,as one who wants the job so badly he will do and say anything to get it” - i think it is more like he is willing to NOT say anything in order to get the job. . . :)
(Hey, if we don’t get John on the SC, who is going to protect us from colored schoolchildren eating french fries on the subway?)
Posted by wolf on Sep 20, 2005 at 12:09 PM With John Roberts presiding over home plate, we should expect more of the same rationale as demonstrated by National Baseball Hall of Fame president, Dale Petroskey, when he nixed Tim Robbins from entering the batter’s box. No Bull Durhams, no joys in Mudville.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0412-09.htmPlus, I don’t usually comment on appearances, but this guy creeps me out with his cyborg like eyes.
A programmable six billion dollar man?
Posted by Tim Christopher on Sep 20, 2005 at 2:43 PM Robbins wrote: “I am sorry that you have chosen to use baseball and your position at the Hall of Fame to make a political statement. I know there are many baseball fans that disagree with you and even more that will react with disgust to realize baseball is being politicized.”
I suppose it cuts both ways.
Robbins further went on: “You are using what power you have to infringe upon my rights to free speech and by taking this action hope to intimidate the millions of others that disagree with our president.”
Wow. My right to free speech was also violated! I was *never* even invited to the event, much less to speak there. . .
Hey lets admit it. Celebrities are basically idiots, and rich ones at that. Sometimes they espouse our points of view and we call them good names, other times they disagree with us and we call them bad names. But basically they are, at best, as well informed as the guy driving next to you on your commute home.
Posted by wolf on Sep 20, 2005 at 3:21 PM I came here looking for some criticism of John Roberts, and as usual, In These Times does not disappoint. I’d like to take exception to a few things mentioned this article, though.
First of all, trying to smear De Lay by referring to his former working-class profession is a non sequitur. If he was once a prole, doesn’t that earn him points? I’m sure there are far better ways to insult the guy, as even many on the right are none too fond of “The Hammer”.
Second, using aguments made by a lawyer working for a client to infer said lawyer’s personal belief system is bound to be highly inaccurate, to say the least. It’s a stretch to use this episode to freely claim that Roberts is a member of a conspiracy with a “right-wing agenda”. As a disclaimer I must state that I disagree with Robert’s line of reasoning in his arguments before the court, and wholeheartedly believe that women seeking any form of medical treatment should be free from threats and intimidation.
Third, my take on Hedgepeth v. WMATA was that Roberts basically threw the onus back on the Transit Authority and their board of directors. The law was crappy, yes, but unconstitutional? He said no, and I agree, but I would also lobby for a change in the law, and Robert’s decision sure put a forceful punctuation on any effort to do so.
Posted by crashtech on Sep 20, 2005 at 9:44 PM Crashtech, so a few little points there, some reasonable, what is the overall message, that Roberts is a good choice? You are welcome to that thought if it is yours, but if you think this, it kind of puts a damper on anybody taking you seriously, except for certain people who are an embarrassment to any sentient creature’s views.
Kuya, the rabbit agrees with you that it is pointless to do profiling. In fact any security is pointless. Anbody who has ever done any time in the can could tell you one very basic rule. No security devised by man is impossible for determined men to bypass. The only sort of security which has even a chance of catching some, is the random sort.
Fixed security patterns is a boon to anybody who wishes to bypass security. Don’t believe Rabbit, just start racial profiling and see how many “terrorist” attacks you subvert.
WOLF, there is a very important question that Rabbit wishes you might answer for him. It is important to a few people here as we have been privately speculating about this.
Are you the WOLF of ADE? There is something familiar about your posts, something in the occasional lucidity along with the language, which while moderate for S. Wolf Britain, is nonetheless familiar.
Of course this would mean that you are “very” familiar with this mangy old Bunny, and just because this was so does not preclude any further discussion, far from it, but it matters to those who like to be up front.
This is not a leading question, it is asked in all sincerity.
As for all the cheating and corrupt Judges “Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, and Kennedy” is it not the case that the Fitzgerald enquiry may be their Waterloo?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 21, 2005 at 3:33 AM wolf,
Not saying anything is still doing anything to get in power.Sin by omission?If Roberts is unable to comprehend the First and Fourth amendments,then he’s either a fascist or utterly stupid.(they’re usually concurrent)
While you may find it funny that a girl is treated in a Kafkaesque or Orwellian manner for something minor,others do not.Imagine one of your children being treated the same way.It’s not impossible.The right-wing’s appetite for power grows with the eating.
The claim-to-be-right keeps pushing for “law and order” candidates,mainly out of fears involving race and class.If they’re not careful,boy are they going to get what they THOUGHT they wanted!
I doubt if James Madison envisioned french-fries.I’ll bet he’d be livid if he saw how this country is subverting freedom and forcing its population to support the needs of a few greedy political insiders and their cronies.I wonder what his contemporaies would’ve done in the same situation?Oh,wait,we already know.
Let’s review:
Reactionaries who believe that you can violate the Bill of Rights when it supports your “moral"view:Good.
Black girls who eat french-fries at subway stops:Bad because french fries are dangerous if not handled carefully.
Carting off black girls to jail in paddy-wagons for eating fries at a subway stop:Necessary to keep law and order.
Preventing pregnant women from being harassed by religious zealots:Not necessary because the zealots are not in white sheets.
Celebrities who express their political views:Stupid because they’re celebrities.DID YOU HEAR THAT,CHARLTON HESTON?
Democrats who unwittingly side with politicians who used to make their living killing little things:Just as responsible for this mess as the opposition.
Posted by wwoods on Sep 21, 2005 at 7:01 AM This afternoon I see the headline that Pat Leahy will back Blue Eyes for chief justice. What a joke.
Posted by jazzfan on Sep 21, 2005 at 1:47 PM I see a lot of ranting about Roberts here, but I listened fairly carefully to the confirmation hearings and came away feeling that although I don’t agree with him ideologically, he’s the best that Bush could possibly nominated. We could be up against Priscilla Owen (who is certifiably insane) but instead we just have an intelligent conservative with a very narrow interpretation of the law. It’s not ideal, but how could it be. Clearly it doesn’t matter weather the Dems vote to confirm or not, but shouldn’t we be saving the fight for the lunatic that Bush is sure to nominate to fill Oconnor’s seat?
In addition, I have to say that I find it disconcerting to see the same intellectually dishonest tactics used to discredit Roberts that are par for the course in The Weekly Standard and National Review. Roberts addressed all of the issues mentioned but his answers are ignored in order to present a more extreme view. Is this the only way to attack the right? Maybe it is. But I’m pretty sure that not all of the people who voted Republican in 04 are insane and maybe if we made an effort to understand where they we coming from we might be able to gain some ground. Oh hell, who knows? Maybe the only way to win is to generate the kind of echo chamber for lies that they have. I kind of hope it’s not though.
Posted by daninportland on Sep 21, 2005 at 4:26 PM Why wack one arsehole less just because there are even more deserving candidates along the way?
....................^^.........................What is this is there some sort of “BAG LIMIT” on “Arseholes” or something?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 22, 2005 at 3:42 AM daninportland,
Intellectually dishonest?Try intellectually non-exisitent or ineffective.
There’s a reason that it’s difficult to disagree with him.He hasn’t made his views known.
Maybe it’s just me,I might be crazy,but if I were appointing someone to the powerful legal position in ouir country,I would want ot know where he or she stands on a number of issues so that I didn’t appoint a fascist,or...Republicans...(MUSICAL STING--SHUHNT DUHNT DUHNT!!!)...A socialist.
Harmless lunatics are talkative.
Dangerous lunatics are silent.
By the way,he isn’t answering all the questions,at least not staisfactorily."YUP" is not an acceptable response.perhaps thats why everyone left of reactionary has a problem with him.
GhostRabbit,
No bag limit.
Wack all you want,They’ll make more!
Posted by wwoods on Sep 22, 2005 at 6:06 AM I’m scared of him too, just like “everyone left of reactionary” but we all know the only real reason to think he’s a right wing wacko is because Bush nominated him. Aside from that bit of damning evidence, he’s done nothing but present a perfect picture of an intelligent and conservative jurist. He gave his reasons for his failure to answer certain questions and his narrow interpretation of what he should say seemed to fit with the rest of his judicial philosophy. The pundits on the right are almost equally scared because he said that he “respects the precedent” of Roe. In all honesty that probably puts him to the left of Rhenquist. The bottom line is that spot has got to be filled. Are we planning on filibustering every nominee until a Democrat gets elected president? What’s the alternative to Roberts? I’m open to ideas, but I’d like to be pragmatic.
Posted by daninportland on Sep 22, 2005 at 8:36 AM daninportland,
Frankly,I’m at a loss.We as citizens pay more attention to sporting events than to who will determine the legal direction of our country.True he’s presented a perfect picture so far.Then again,so do many wife beaters,child abusers,serial killers and so on.Most of us are afraid Roberts will pull a 180 on us as soon as he’s appointed,just like Bush did after he was appointed.
That Bush appointed him is enough reason to fear Roberts.Look at all the ideologues he’s put into positions of power so far.That,or they’re cronies or plain ineffective.Any of those traits,and the odds are one of them is correct,is certainly enough to disqualify Roberts.Remember,this is the posit
ion of Chief Justice of The U.S.Supreme Court,the most powerful legal position in our country.As a relatively young man,Roberts could hold that job for the next thrty to forty years.Still,I’ve heard of one really interesting idea.
Since Roberts refuses to speak out on certain issues because those cases might be brought in front of him at one point or another,there is one perfect ruling to question him on.A case which will probably never occur again,and hence no precedent.“Judge Roberts,what would have been your ruling,had you been on the bench,on the case of Bush vs. Gore?”
Posted by wwoods on Sep 22, 2005 at 12:44 PM “True he’s presented a perfect picture so far.Then again,so do many wife beaters,child abusers,serial killers and so on.”
Guilt by non-association?
“That Bush appointed him is enough reason to fear Roberts”
Are you asserting that the President, duly elected, should not have the duty/privilege of nominating the SC justices? Who then should do the nominating? Would this require a change in the constitution?
“Judge Roberts,what would have been your ruling,had you been on the bench,on the case of Bush vs. Gore?”
If he sides with Bush, would this disqualify him? How about if he sides with Gore? Seems like a no win question to me. . .
Anyway, all this is moot. Roberts will be selected, and he won’t be as bad as the left thinks. Or as good as the right hopes. Just another SC Chief Justice. Life goes on.
Posted by wolf on Sep 22, 2005 at 1:13 PM Wolf ignores Rabbit in a Way only Wolf S Britain would do, why would Wolf not answer a little query please....?
Nice Wabbit.............................^^.................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 23, 2005 at 5:57 AM Wolf: “I suppose it cuts both ways.”
Actually, Robbins was only going to be part of a group representing a popular baseball movie being commemorated; whereas, Petroskey, an overtly partisan Republican, disallowed their scheduled appearance for purely political reasons while at the same time inviting other [partisan republicans] speakers, with no real connection to the baseball hall of fame, to come and give speeches that praised Bush and the war in Iraq. So, no, it didn’t really cut both ways at all and I fully expect Roberts, a go to mouthpiece for Republicans, to funnel conservative opinion on the bench in much the same manner.
Wolf: “Hey lets admit it. Celebrities are basically idiots, and rich ones at that.”
Hey, remember a guy named Joseph McCarthy? Republicans are always trying to discredit celebrities. Lets also make a distinction here: Paris Hilton is a celebrity—Tim Robbins is an artist. Republicans have a problem with artists because artists are intelligent, thoughtful, empathetic—they speak their mind and don’t hold back when confronted with government lies and injustice. And if Tim Robbins happens to be rich (successful)—so what?—Tim and Susan (Sarandon) are really great people, devoted not only to their craft but to humanity, as well. Any attempt to discredit them only places you with the likes of right wing assholes like Joseph McCarthy.
I might also point out that in the immediate wake of hurricane Katrina, while George Bush was off playing guitar, outspoken actor (artist) Sean Penn had already flown to New Orleans, secured a boat, and was off rescuing people. So who then is the idiot “celebrity” in this case?
Posted by Tim Christopher on Sep 23, 2005 at 8:42 PM “ ... and try to remain on topic.”
Conservatives argue that the Constitution and the laws MUST mean what they say, and not some ‘interpretation’ of what they say. Particularly an interpretation that invents new rules that have never passed any legislature.
RE: The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. 1985)
The Act as written stipulates that “two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.”
The key phrase here is “in disguise”. That is why this is known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. This law does not say “in disguise or not in disguise”, it says “in disguise”. If two or persons conspired in rabbit costumes (or Ku Klu Klan robes), they would be in violation of this law, otherwise no. You have to find a valid conspiracy law or write and pass a valid conspiracy law to convict people in this type incident if they are not in disguise.
RE: Fourth Amendment declaration that people have a right “to be secure in their persons” and to be free from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
This article omits, and therefore misrepresents, Judge Roberts own take on this case. Roberts clearly stated at the time that the “local ordinance” was a bad law, but it was not an unconstitutional law. In our system, laws should be written by legislatures, not by judges. If judges took it upon themselves to contravene every bad law, do you see the capacity for chaos? What if two judges disagreed as to whether a law was bad, even though they both agreed that it was Constitutional? What if two judges agreed that a law was bad, even though they both agreed that it was Constitutional? Crashtech caught this, no one else did.
Posted by scorp on Sep 24, 2005 at 9:49 PM wolf said"Are you asserting that the President, duly elected, should not have the duty/privilege of nominating the SC justices?”
Are you kidding! Bush was not DULY elected-EVER
Posted by Kaw Valley Kid on Sep 25, 2005 at 12:40 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
- Supreme Court OKs Racial Profiling
- Supreme Court Inc.
The Roberts Court unravels a generation of progress - And Now The Justice Department Eight
- Judging Harriet Miers
Democrats must rise up and challenge conservative claptrap about "activist judges" - Bad on the Basics
John Roberts' affability masks a callous indifference to some of our most fundamental rights - Origin of the Specious
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
