Roberts renominated for Chief Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich: Like I said, I'd hope. You, apparently, already know. How is that?
Click to expand...
You seemed to be more than hoping with statements like these:

I disagree that Roberts is "indifferent" to the Second, and simply cannot believe that a Constitutional Scholar of his acumen has never really looked at the history of the Second. Nor could this have been a question he didn't prep for before the Hearings.
Click to expand...
OK, so how do you prep for this hearing and know the history of the 2nd and NOT know that cert was denied in Silviera vs Lockyer last year? The only explanation I have for that kind of ignorance is indifference.
2) He believes it's time for SCOTUS to resolve the conflicting decisions of the Circuits. He's almost invited the case....
Click to expand...
If he believes that, why didn't he say that? And why doesn't he know that the Court has refused to address the conflict when they denied cert in Silviera?
No, Roberts isn't ignorant of the subject. He's extremely cagey....he's encouraged the issue be brought before the Court and has provided no inkling as to his position. One can only hope.
Click to expand...
He may not be ignorant, but he's lacking an important piece of the puzzle. Or, he's lying about lacking that piece.

It seems to me that getting before the Senate and suggesting (either falsely or out of ignorance) that there may be a pending cert petition which, if denied, would create a conflict between the circuits does less to invite the issue before the Court than getting before the Senate and telling the truth: that the cert petition was denied, and there IS a conflict between the circuits. But it's the same issue either way.

Let's say I'm a gungrabbing Senator who is ignorant of the recent cases. Given his testimony, I might reasonably conclude that if he is confirmed, he will grant cert in this mystery case in order to resolve the conflict between the circuits. If he had admitted the knowledge which you suspect he has, and testified that there is a conflict between the circuits and the Court has refused to address it, I might reasonably conclude that if he is confirmed, he will grant cert in some new case in order to resolve the conflict between the circuits.

I still see no reason for this grand deception, not even a reason to hope for it. I still say he's indifferent to and ignorant of the current status of the 2nd. Maybe some here could see that more clearly if Kerry appointed that dude, I don't know.

BTW, like I said earlier, I do agree that he gave no inkling of his position, and we have no reason to believe he is hostile toward the 2nd, nor any reason to believe he is friendly toward it. All we have are reasons to believe he doesn't feel passionately about it one way or another, and he hasn't checked up on it this year.
 
publius42, you have stated the basis for my earlier conclusion quite well.

This doesn't mean that Roberts would vote against an individual rights case, should it come before him. What it does mean, to me, is that like many people, the Second Amendment is not something that is in his everyday conscienceness.
Roberts: 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.

Roberts: 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.
Click to expand...
What this suggests to my mind is that Roberts remembers enough about the issue to remember the only ruling in recent times that has upheld the right to be individual. Yet at the same time, he doesn't think it relevant enough to have remembered the Silveira case by name or disposition, nor that the 9th Circuit has consistently ruled in the past that the Second is a collective right.

This suggests to me, indifference.
 
of possibly indifference by design and caculation :eek:

I am sure he is a reasonably intelligent individual and has an inkling of the questions that might come up.. This nomination process reminds me of a poker game. He has cards you cant see and he has cards in the river that everybody can see.
 
What this suggests to my mind is that Roberts remembers enough about the issue to remember the only ruling in recent times that has upheld the right to be individual. Yet at the same time, he doesn't think it relevant enough to have remembered the Silveira case by name or disposition, nor that the 9th Circuit has consistently ruled in the past that the Second is a collective right.

This suggests to me, indifference.
Click to expand...
Yes. On the brighter said, as Wildalaska pointed out earlier, Roberts has a good understanding of Miller. They didn't send it back because they found that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia weapon. They sent it back because that was never established one way or the other. Of course, that action does suggest that the answer to that question was important to them in deciding the case. Why? The only reason I can come up with is, they thought that the 2nd protected the weapon if it was shown to be a militia weapon, and did not if it was not.
 
The only reason I can come up with is, they thought that the 2nd protected the weapon if it was shown to be a militia weapon, and did not if it was not.
Click to expand...
Can you say...SAW? :eek: :D

I got a feeling the realtionship to the militia test is gonna dissapear toute suite

oral argument:

So what you are saying, counselor, is that as long as a weapon can be used by the "militia" it is OK to own without restriction? How about aritllary pieces :eek:

Yes your honor, that is correct (lose)

Yes your honor, of course with the caveat that Congress or the States are fre to pass laws that govern the posesion of those types of weapons as long as it does not infringe...(win)

WIll leave the rest to imagination as the Judges and lawyers count the angels dancing on the head of a pin

WildbutnoneedtospeculateAlaska
 
Yes, I mean cannons. :D

The militia test will disappear in the way you say if we're lucky.

If we're not so lucky, the Supremes will resolve the conflict between the circuits in favor of the 9th circuit's interpretation. The militia test will be here to stay.
 
The Senate Judiciary Committee has just about finished voting to send the nominee to the full Senate.

Currently: 11 votes yea; 4 votes nay. 3 Senators not voted.

This means that even if the remainder vote, nay, Roberts will go before a full Senate vote. Most likely a week from today.

More follows.

edited to update vote
 
The results of todays Committee vote:
Code: 
Sept. 22, 2005 	Senate Judiciary Committee Vote

Republicans        Vote        Democrats          Vote

Specter, A. (PA)     Y         Leahy, P. (VT)       Y
Chair                          Ranking Member 

Hatch, O. (UT)       Y         Kennedy, E. (MA)     N

Grassley, C. (IA)    Y         Biden, J. (DE)       N

Kyl, J. (AZ)         Y         Kohl, H. (WI)        Y

DeWine, M. (OH)      Y         Feinstein, D. (CA)   N

Sessions, J. (AL)    Y         Feingold, D. (CA)    Y

Graham, L. (SC)      Y         Schumer, C. (NY)     N

Cornyn, J. (TX)      Y         Durbin, R. (IL)      N

Brownback, S. (KS)   Y

Coburn, T. (OK)      Y
Rich, you may be correct. I'm encountering a lot of network congestion, scads of people must have been online watching C-Span3... like me.
 
So what you are saying, counselor, is that as long as a weapon can be used by the "militia" it is OK to own without restriction? How about aritllary pieces
Click to expand...

"Your honor, Artillery pieces where just that unrestricted until 1968..."
 
Artillery pieces seem to me at least a useful part, if not a necessary part, of the intent of the militia. Again, Federalist 29:
By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
Click to expand...
Note the emphasis (mine). Hamilton twice implies that one of the main reasons for the existence of the militias was, if needed, to fight against the federal army. (His other reason was to prevent the need for a standing army, which they viewed as inherently dangerous to liberty.)

The weapons Feinstein and the rest most want to ban are the very kinds of weapons which Hamilton would require individuals to own.
 
militia

If I had known then what I know now. Years ago I could have legally bought a 20mm Lahti. Now THAT would have been a gas, but nowhere to shoot it around here.
 
Final arguments before the full Senate have begun.

The conformation vote is scheduled for 11:30am eastern, today.
 
Final vote by the full Senate on Roberts confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:

78 Yea
22 Nay

Mr. Chief Justice Roberts will be sworn in at approximately 3:00pm eastern today.
 
What Daniel Webster termed the miracle of our Constitution is not something that happens in every generation, but every generation in its turn must accept the responsibility of supporting and defending the Constitution and bearing true faith and allegiance to it.
-- Chief Justice John Roberts
Click to expand...

Can I get an A-MEN!!! :cool:
 
My problem with Roberts as chief justice is that he is so vague in areas where he needs to be visible. The man is a ghost when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, civil rights, civil liberties, and other areas like the above.

He's downright scary in areas not so politically combustable. His views aren't rational either. (Witness his opinion on the ability of Congress to pass ANY law as long as they link it to the Commerce Clause.) Anyone who got to his level of our justice system HAS to have written SOMETHING by which a standard can be calculated or observed. Yet Roberts is so vague on so many things that this can't be done. Yeah yeah, I know about the conservative/liberal statistical analysis that was done from his decision - BUNK all of it. From nomenclature to application it's all jumbled garbage to support a pre-analysis opinion by the statistician.

I fear that Roberts is going to create more division in America by tossing out established liberties to gain or repay personal favors. The man just scares me. If I were a woman, I'd be watching him so close there'd be at least 3 people in his bedroom at night.

IMO, our Chief Justice must have a vision of what American is supposed to become in the future based upon where our past conflicts and resolutions have pointed us given the limitations on our government and our Constitution. Roberts does not seem to be that person. At least not to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top