Image Control by Mr. Fish
Bookmakers would have made a killing in Washington on Tuesday, as hacks and flacks, pundits and bloggers furiously placed bets on who would replace Justice OConnor on the Supreme Court. By evening, the speculative free-for-all was over and the straight poop came directly from Bushs mouth: John Roberts, 50-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was the nominee. Now arises a new question: Who exactly is John Roberts? His short stint in the appellate courts Roberts was confirmed in 2003 leaves little record to assess beyond that hes conservative (maybe very conservative), and apparently quite a nice guy with some Democratic allies. All of which makes his nomination a clever move that may defuse some of the Democrats momentum on this issue and allow Bush to slip in a potentially Court-changing justice. Well, I should say to begin with, that I like and respect John Roberts enormously . . . He is thoughtful. Hes certainly brilliant. I enjoyed the experience of arguing against him, and as a matter of fact though I didnt enjoy losing, I enjoyed losing to him in the abortion-counseling decision 5-4.
Laurence Tribe, Gores attorney in Bush vs. Gore in 2000, on Charlie Rose, July 19, 2005
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
John Roberts is one of these extraordinary men [with] an incredible degree of brilliance. In a room of smart people . . . hes the smartest guy in the room, but you dont feel like it. Ive known him for years, and he doesnt hes not the kind of person that lords it over you. When you combine that kind of just niceness with that kind of intellectual rigor, youre talking about a potential for enormous influence.
Nina Totenberg, Nightline, July 19
With Roberts, Bush is obviously playing it safe maybe because hes tanking in the polls, or suffering from the Rove scandal and bad Iraq news, or just because he doesnt want another battle to distract from his faltering domestic agenda. Roberts is the least likely of the rumored short-listed candidates to provoke outrage. He is a well-known Washington insider, an institutional player, a highly placed member of the legal establishment. He enjoys the kind of respect Kenneth Starr had before embarking on his anti-Clinton crusade, as a safe, sound man, not an ideological zealot like Edith Jones or wacko like Janice Rogers Brown. These qualities are going to make Roberts confirmation easier. They are also what make him dangerous.
Robert Gordon, professor of law and legal history at Yale, Talking Points Memo Supreme Court Watch blog, July 19