John G Roberts, Jr

Well, it is official. The nominee for O'Connor's vacated seat is John G Roberts, Jr. Blog readers already know that. But how about some information. I have not read much about Roberts' decisions but what I have I read I like.

From Wikipedia's entry on him:

* Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority involved a twelve-year-old girl who was invited to incriminate herself as an illegal drug user, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters and booked (fingerprinted) because she ate a french fry in a Washington metro station. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint, which was predicated on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Roberts began his opinion by noting that "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," and pointing out that the policies under which the girl was "apprehended" have since been changed. Roberts concluded the court was not authorized to second-guess the appropriateness of the District's policies: "The question before us," Roberts wrote, "is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution."

Evidence that he is not willing to create laws from the bench. He understands the proper role of the courts. Score one in favor of Roberts.

* Military tribunals. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Roberts joined the majority in upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects, overturning the district court ruling. [4] The majority ruled that Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, can be tried in a military commission because, the Court ruled: (1) military commissions are legitimate forums to try enemy combatants; (2) the 1949 Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies; (3) even if the '49 Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance because Hamdan received a legitimate hearing in front of a competent tribunal. And finally, under the terms of the '49 Convention, al Qaeda and its members are not covered.

Totally agree. Score another in favor.

* Environmental regulation. On the U.S. Court of Appeals, Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion siding with a developer in a case involving the protection of a rare Californian toad under the Endangered Species Act. He argued that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California." Nevertheless, he said that he might be willing to sustain the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on other grounds.

Love the style. Score more support.

Now I get to say I told you so. I knew that the Democrats would call anything and everything a "extraordinary circumstance." In this article from KTVU.com they report on Sen. Boxer.

Seven Democrats and seven Republicans signed a pact this spring pledging not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances, and three judges whose nominations had been held up were soon confirmed.

Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an "extraordinary circumstance."

Actually I heard the quote (and have not found it available on the internet yet). She actually said this: "Just having O'Connor stepping down is an extraordinary circumstance."

So here is how it will lay out. If the Dems think they can get away with it they will filibuster Roberts (or if their Borking fails--that will be tried). Based on the history of the squishy spined Senate GOP they will eventually back down OR they will start the Nuclear Option and then back down when the media blames them for breaking the agreement.

Now what do I think of the future of the Court? I think that a very likely scenario is that there will be much ado about Bush not nominating a woman. Regardless, once the conservative Roberts is confirmed Rehnquist will retire. That will leave 2 appointments essentially...one for the 9th seat on the Court and one for the Chief Justices robes. Bush then might appoint Brown (a black, conservative woman) as Chief. What kind of corner would the Dems be in then? Fighting against the first black Chief, the first woman Chief...better than that fighting against the first black woman Chief. The racist colors of the Senate Dems would be very easy to point out after that.

That is my War Room guess.