The Facts: Roberts Nomination

Originally nominated by President Bush on July 19 to fill the vacancy left by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, John G. Roberts is now Bush's nominee for Chief Justice, following the death of William H. Rehnquist. If Roberts is confirmed in short order, the court will start its session in October with a full compliment of nine judges. O'Connor has agreed to stay on until her replacement is confirmed.

For a quick primer on Roberts himself, washingtonpost.com has compiled a dossier that includes his vital stats, a short bio, and some key documents from thecourse of his career. Want information on the whole court? Another primer from washingtonpost.com -- this one interactive -- can be found here. And don't forget to check in regularly with the Post's Campaign for the Court blog, which is updated frequently with new news developments in the nomination process.

Other unvarnished facts on this week's Debate topic can be found at:

The Supreme Court's information page
NPR's Roberts nomination page
About.com's Supreme Court links page
Jim Lehrer's News Hour page on the Roberts confirmation

By Emily Messner |  September 12, 2005; 5:00 AM ET  | Category:  Facts
Previous: Lessons and Blame | Next: John G. Roberts: Unlikely To Be 'Borked'

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Is it too soon to speculate on the next nomination?

Posted by: Bob P. | September 12, 2005 08:04 AM

I've been mentioning the James Kroeger article, The Republican Nemesis, on the blogs because I feel so strongly about its potential to make the Democrats the majority party again.

It's lengthy, but it's packed with insights into why Democratic campaign strategists fail when they go up against the Republicans.

Here's what others have been saying about The Republican Nemesis:

http://www.taxwisdom.org/what_others_are_saying.htm

Posted by: Linette | September 12, 2005 09:13 AM

From the "Republican Nemesis":

===========================================
"What Democrats need to do now is create an image of The Republican Politician that is threatening to Swing Voters, one that they will not ultimately want to identify with."
===========================================

From the frying pan into the fire.

Just look at this nomination/confirmation process for a clue, that alienating the "swing voters" isn't a good stragedy. None of the Dems are going to fight against him -- he's too clean, and has the intellectual capital that the Elitest element envies (and the PC types will love him as he doesn't offend them). Most of the "swing voters" will want Roberts to be nominated, because he doesn't come off as a foaming at the mouth fundie (which is the other alternative that no one but the radical right wants <--- do you see you've been trumped with your own tactic now? It's not new, it's just repackaged and politicos know it already).

The "swing voters" don't feel threatened by Roberts. If they don't, they will tune out of the process. That leaves the partisan party members to duke it out, which most of the country tunes out as they're crazy (just a look at the Hannity forum [which allows chaos in under Fox News playbook -- we're balanced -- NOT!] and the Democratic Underground forum [which does the tactic that Pat Buchanan would be proud of, isolation of like kind only]).

Want the "swing voter"? Start taking away rights and play race politics. That will wake them up from their sleep, because now it's personal (which politics is about, and why it's local -- if it affects someone in NYC, the person in Midland, TX wouldn't care).

The problem with Dems now is their base is so fractured that they can't even agree on the issues. With so many competeing special interests (they all want a piece of a pie, but there's only so much of a pie to carve up...and none of them are willing to take one slice. They're too greedy), they're sinking under all of them. And since there's so many, it can't be ruled over [like in the old days of iron fist power that ran the Democratic Party], which means leadership (a one party message and reining in the radicals) is impossible.

Until Dems cut out the bruised and diseased parts of their apple, the Repubs will take all your good and shiny ones (the ideals they feel can take those "swing voters" from you), and bake a nice apple pie out of them -- at your expense.

Divide and conquer politics is what rules now. And trying to do the same with the moderate majority is a prescription for disaster (for when you partisans start destroying their bear cave world, they'll bite back. And they could by knocking your parties down overnight and eating you for breakfast).

Don't you guys ever learn from history, let alone common sense? If you want to play with those matches, you will get burnt by them when they feel they're going to be all used up in one of your partisan BS ideals. Pork bribes aren't going to save you then. Just remember the French "Revolution" instead, and it's aftermath.

SandyK
P.S. -- I personally would want the Dems to have another Bork process with Roberts. Not play fetch or play dead. Because someone that clean isn't, they're just crafty to hone a fine edge, one that hides the rusty cleaver with blood stains on it. But don't expect a fight in either confirmation processes -- the Dems are so fractured that they couldn't unite in time to take those bloody cleavers away.

Roberts will be confirmed as the other nominee. All because 1000+ special interests dividing their party's strength, and their leaders trying to come off "civil" in public -- have to look like CEOs to look as good as Roberts, right?.

[They're like each other and don't care to admit it]

Posted by: SandyK | September 12, 2005 11:15 AM

SandyK: "From the frying pan into the fire."

Interesting, the level of your cluelessness.

Posted by: Linette | September 12, 2005 11:42 AM

Linette,

At least bring a plate to the table, and take a bite, before vomiting all over everything. Otherwise, you'll have to search for the bigger chunks to dine on, and/or get cleaned up with the offal.

SandyK

Posted by: SandyK | September 12, 2005 12:07 PM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.