Roberts renominated for Chief Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
From How Right Is He? A Quantitative Analysis of the Ideology of Judge John G. Roberts, a 12 page analysis of the tenure of Roberts on the DC Appeals Court, by
Kenneth L. Manning, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Political Science
University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth

The author viewed Roberts voting record on the 190 cases he helped to decide while on the DC Court of Appeals and made a statistics table based upon

Code: 
TABLE 1: PERCENTAGE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE DECISIONS BY JUDGE
JOHN ROBERTS

                       John           ct. of Appeals
                      Roberts            Average           Difference
                       % (n)               %
______________________________________________________________________________
Liberal Decisions      32.2%             41.1%               -8.9%
Conservative Decisions 67.1%             58.9%               +8.2%
______________________________________________________________________________
Odds ratio α = 1.31 (31% more conservative, overall)

Code: 
TABLE 2: PERCENTAGE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE DECISIONS BY JUDGE
JOHN ROBERTS IN THREE CASE TYPES

                   Criminal        Civil Rights        Economic Activity
                   Justice         & Liberties*        & Labor Regulation
                      %                  %                     %
______________________________________________________________________________
Liberal             13.6% (6)        15.4% (2)             55.7% (39)
Conservative        86.4% (38)       84.6% (11)            44.3% (49)
U.S. Ct. of Appeals 79.2%            58.8%                 48.3%
Average Percentage
Conservative
Votes
Odds ratio (α)      α = 1.66         α = 3.85              α = .85
______________________________________________________________________________
n’s reported in parentheses.
* The number of civil liberties and rights cases by Roberts is too low to make
statistically valid comparisons. Data are presented for
reference purposes.

What this seems to indicate is that Roberts is mostly conservative in all but a small area of litigation.
 
I believe Manning's analysis is subjective and essentially flawed. For example, as an example of a liberal judicial decision he says, "A Judge's decision upholding individual civil liberties protections was coded as liberal, while those that allowed government greater control were recorded as conservative". In my lexicon, a decision affirming the 2nd Amendment as an individual right would be defined as conservative, as would be a decision limiting government's ability to search and seize property. Indeed, most of us lament President Bush's expansion of government intrusion into citizen's lives through the Patriot Act as an excessively "liberal" action. True conservatism would favor strict limitations on govermental control.

I think what we see here is a manipulation of definitions to support a desired outcome.
 
Not necessarily Don. When I first read the article, I had the same first same impression. However, after reviewing the article again, I've come to the conclusion that the Prof. is using the terms in their classical sense and meaning.

Consider, in the classical sense, an activist Justice is one who legislates from the bench, that is, he rules that a law says more than it actually does, or rules that a constitutional provision doesn't mean what it says. Under current political modes however, an activist Justice is one who overrules the Congress and strikes down legislature.

Remember, that academia often uses terms in their classical mode, thus confusing the general populace as to their real meaning. This is not deception on their part, as the stuff they write is meant to be read by other academicians, not the general public.
 
I can go along with that interpretation (conservative = liberal, liberal = conservative). However, by using a historic definition rather than a current, political definition, and not noting the distinction, does he not then mislead those watching the current political scene, under the guise of an unbiased review, into believing that Roberts is more conservative than he actually is? Or is he really disguising Roberts' liberalism from the conservative faction?
 
Down Pogo! Down!

Don, if I read the Prof correctly, Roberts will tend to be more conservative than liberal. A little. Much like O'Connor. This will leave the court in a slightly left of center trend. What it comes down to now, is who Bush will nominate to replace O'Connor.

I'd really like to see someone like Janice Rodgers-Brown. Her name is being brought up more often. But we won't know for sure until after Roberts is confirmed. Likely as not, Bush will nominate as shortly after the conformation of Roberts as possible.
 
You may want Rodgers-Brown but will likely get Al Gonzales,which, I believe, will lead to a slightly more leftist court than we have seen for a bit.

I'm just hoping for a well-balanced court that can hand down well-regarded decisions.
 
They're going to go even further left than Raich, in which Thomas said that Congress has power over "virtually anything?" I won't have much regard for them.

I think there were a dozen Americans scattered around who agreed with the Kelo decision. Bush managed to nominate one of them already, and I guess we shouldn't be surprised if he finds one of the others for his next nomination.
 
Looking at Judge Roberts answers I would say he is an adroit tapdancer by not giving either side ammo to take pot shots at him. He gave an answer but it didnt really show any insight into what he might or might not do :D Sounds pretty much like the make up of the court is not going to change that much.....I dont think we will see any dramatic swerves to one side.
 
Eghad-
Is the glass half full or half empty?
If they say what we don't want to hear, we protest.
If they don't say what we want to hear, we protest.

Fact of the matter is that, no matter what the guy's stance, he'd have to take the line he did in order to be confirmed without another Thomas Circus. He's told us nothing....which is as it should be.

Yet still, some of us protest. Though we have no real facts, we'll protest....because, no matter who "we" are, we're certain that .gov's every move is specifically and carefully designed to screw "us".

I swear, sometimes I think Americans have never gotten over the the trauma inflicted by Mummy and Daddy. :rolleyes:
Rich
 
Fact of the matter is that, no matter what the guy's stance, he'd have to take the line he did in order to be confirmed without another Thomas Circus. He's told us nothing....which is as it should be.
Click to expand...
So he couldn't reveal that he knows a thing or two about the conflict between the circuits on the 2nd amendment because doing so would invite a circus?
ROBERTS: Yes. Well, I mean, you're quite right that there is a dispute among the circuit courts. It's really a conflict among the circuits.

The 5th Circuit -- I think it was in the Emerson case, if I'm remembering it correctly -- agreed with what I understand to be your view, that this protects an individual right. But they went on to say that the right was not infringed in that case. They upheld the regulations there.

The 9th Circuit has taken a different view. I don't remember the name of the case now. But a very recent case from the 9th Circuit has taken the opposite view that it protects only a collective right, as they said.

In other words, it's only the right of a militia to possess arms and not an individual right.

Particularly since you have this conflict -- cert was denied in the Emerson case -- I'm not sure it's been sought in the other one or will be. That's sort of the issue that's likely to come before the Supreme Court when you have conflicting views.
Click to expand...
I still don't see how saying the name of the case would result in a circus, nor how saying that cert was denied in the case last year would result in a circus. He stated that he knew of the conflict between the circuits. His knowledge seems sketchy and dated to me. I've seen no reason offered as to why he would fake sketchy and dated knowledge on this subject, other than the speculation that it would "cause a circus" if it appeared that his knowledge was a little more complete and current.

Why?

(That was a question, not a complaint.)
 
Publius-
Your glass is half empty.
Mine is half full.

I'd hope the operative statement is the summation:
Particularly since you have this conflict -- cert was denied in the Emerson case -- I'm not sure it's been sought in the other one or will be. That's sort of the issue that's likely to come before the Supreme Court when you have conflicting views.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I'd hope. You, apparently, already know. How is that?
Rich
 
Eghad-
Is the glass half full or half empty?
If they say what we don't want to hear, we protest.
If they don't say what we want to hear, we protest.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Roberts being nominated for Chief Justice. In fact if I were in the Senate he would have my vote....

simply for the fact that he did not make a decison on the basis of a question. If I am reading this fella right he would like to have a case with fact in front of him not a what if....from some politician which indicates he would be pretty fair minded person.

so my glass is half full since I already drank the first half.......

I personally like the line form the Law and Order show when the judge said to the defense and district attorney that he must have made a right decision because both were mad at him.

Roberts even caught flack from Ann Coulter...lol so if the closer to the right folks and the left folks are criticizing him he must be the man for the job.
 
Eghad-
Apologies if I didn't understand your posts on the subject.
I think you and I are on the same page. We fear the worst but hope for the best.

Basically, we're both too concerned to drink either half of the glass just now. ;)
Rich
 
Thats me plan for the worst hope for the best.....

I had the same difficulties with other folks in my military career..lol

My section was pretty squared away and we had a bunch of old E-8s that I was over. Our section took care of bidness....and played later. We usually were good at anticipating problems so we were not usually in reactive mode in my group. Which meant that we were not in the headless chicken mode running around in circles like most of the other sections. Since we were pretty laid back they assumed we didnt do anything..lol

I had one of the brass ask me why we were not doing anything...

I asked him was he able to get fuel for his vehicle.... yes was the answer
I asked him did he enjoy the meal at the mess hall last night...yes was his answer
I asked him if the air conditioner/heater unit in his tent ever ran out of fuel..no was his answer
I asked him if the folks who needed ammo were able to get what they wanted when they wanted..yes was his answer
I asked him if the units were getting what they wanted from the SSA..yes was his answer

I then said sir it looks like we are doing the job then if you dont have any complaints...lol

Roberts is doing pretty much the same thing...letting the pols answer thier questions and think what they want.....lol

In fact I remember my boss the Major coming in from his morning staff meeting and telling me this needed to be done...to which my reply was 99% of the time that it was completed...lol.
 
the glass is twice as big as it needs to be

I wish I had more to contribute but at least I can say I'm learning a lot about this stuff from y'all. :cool:
 
Though we have no real facts, we'll protest....because, no matter who "we" are, we're certain that .gov's every move is specifically and carefully designed to screw "us".
Click to expand...

I would call that an acquired reflex.

Reagan screwed gun owners over with 922[o].
Bush I screwed gun owners over with the 1989 EO.
Clinton was Clinton was Clinton.

There are people today who are not old enough to remember an administration that didn't screw gun owners.

Of course they expect the Government to do it AGAIN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top