SCOTUS pick: John Roberts

[Rob Lister]

Unless he turns out to be the Manchurian Justice who flips into wackjob mode after someone shows him the queen of diamonds... I mean, he does look a little serial killer, no?

I hate it that I noticed that too. He's got that evangelical look to him. Not the serial-killer look. More the Ned Flanders look. I put it aside because I know it's a fallacy-driven sentiment but it does sort of gnaw at me. It doesn't surprise me that Bush [claims] to like him so much. The administration told a likely fib in that they implied that Bush first asked Roberts to assume the job the morning before his speech. I don't buy that. He's been in the works for weeks. But that's politics.

Judging from his record (so far) I like him more than not. Best pick? No way. Best Bush pick? Maybe.

He could also be a diversion; a bait and switch, as it were. It's been done before. Also, Bush has another appointment chance, maybe two, before his term is up so he may be stacking a precedent with this one.

 

[Cylinder]

He's gonna get hammered for this one, regardless of the merits of the legal theory:

It was the start of another school year and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) was once again getting complaints about bad behavior by students using the Tenleytown/American University Metrorail station. In response WMATA embarked on a week-long undercover operation to enforce a ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ policy with respect to violations of certain ordinances, including one that makes it unlawful for any person to eat or drink in a Metrorail station. D.C. CODE § 35-251(b) (2001). ‘‘Zero tolerance’’ had more fateful consequences for children than for adults. Adults who violate § 35-251(b) typically receive a citation subjecting them to a fine of $10 to $50. Id. § 35-253. District of Columbia law, however, does not provide for the issuance of citations for non-traffic offenses to those under eighteen years of age. Instead, a minor who has committed what an officer has reasonable grounds to believe is a ‘‘delinquent act’’ ‘‘may be taken into custody.’’ Id. § 16-2309(a)(2). Committing a offense under District of Columbia law, such as eating in a Metrorail station, constitutes a ‘‘delinquent act.’’ Id. § 16-2301(7). The upshot of all this is that zero-tolerance enforcement of § 35-251(b) entailed the arrest of every offending
minor but not every offending adult.
The undercover operation was in effect on October 23, 2000, when twelve-year-old Ansche Hedgepeth and a classmate entered the Tenleytown/AU station on their way home from school. Ansche had stopped at a fast-food restaurant on the way and ordered a bag of french fries — to go. While waiting for her companion to purchase a fare-card, Ansche removed and ate a french fry from the take-out bag she was holding. After proceeding through the fare-gate, Ansche was stopped by a plainclothed Metro Transit Police officer, who identified himself and informed her that he was arresting her for eating in the Metrorail station. The officer then handcuffed Ansche behind her back while another officer searched her and her backpack. Pursuant to established procedure, her shoelaces were removed. Upset and crying, Ansche was transported to the District of Columbia’s Juvenile Processing Center some distance away, where she was fingerprinted and processed before being released into the custody of her mother three hours later.

 

[delphi_ote]

Which was the whole point of private accounts.

The whole point, huh? So what was all that nonsense about the "ownership society?" We seem to have lots of posts here about "controlling our own money." I thought that was the point.

Please don't pretend Gore and Bush had the same thing in mind. We both know that's patently ridiculous. Gore wanted to make SS an autonomous untouchable legal entity so it couldn't be spent in any way other than its stated purpose.

 

[Rob Lister]

The whole point, huh? ...

Remember the thread topic: pretty please.

 

[Rob Lister]

He's gonna get hammered for this one, regardless of the merits of the legal theory:

I agree. There was a clear wrong done in this case, I don't think anyone can dispute that, and the court did not (could not?) address it. The parenthetical question mark says it all.

I've got to come down on the side of the court in this case, even though I don't want to. The law was written stupidly but not unconstitutionally. What was the court breakdown on that one?

 

[Luke T.]

Let the bashing begin

Left: Roberts forced a junior female clerk to carry his briefcase!

Right: Roberts is a regular contributor to UNICEF.

Left: Roberts once used "niggardly" in a sentence!

Right: Roberts drives a hybrid Honda.

Left: Roberts dressed up as Satan for Halloween every year when he was a kid.

Right: Roberts helped a homeless little old lady cross the street and then bought her a house when he was 12.

Left: The oil companies are spending billions to put Roberts on the bench so they can invade Alaska and rape wild caribou!

Right: Roberts once healed a leper by laying his hands on him.

Left: Roberts believes solar power is unconstitutional!

Right: Roberts will cure cancer his first year in office.

Left: He's a nazi fundamentalist who will overturn Roe v. Wade and force millions of women to die in back alleys with coathangers jammed up their vaginas.

Right: He's the Second Coming and will lead the column during the Rapture and will be seated at the left hand of God.

 

[Cylinder]

I agree. There was a clear wrong done in this case, I don't think anyone can dispute that, and the court did not (could not?) address it. The parenthetical question mark says it all.

I've got to come down on the side of the court in this case, even though I don't want to. The law was written stupidly but not unconstitutionally. What was the court breakdown on that one?

All three appealate judges ruled with the government. It seems to be a clear-cut case. Like you stated, it was a overzealous zero-tolerance policy taken to a stupid extreme by a police policy - but it was not prohibited by the constitution. Roberts wrote that opninion as well. I'm going to read the determinations when I get a chance. I'm sure this issue will be debated during confirmation.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: SCOTUS pick: John Roberts

Left: Roberts forced a junior female clerk to carry his briefcase!

Right: Roberts is a regular contributor to UNICEF....

That was dog-laughing funny. It is also prophetic. It won't breakdown exactly like you wrote but, by golly, it'll be close.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: SCOTUS pick: John Roberts

...so they can invade Alaska and rape wild caribou!

Interesting...I wonder, once you've had wild caribou can you ever go back to domesticated. Just a thought.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: Re: SCOTUS pick: John Roberts

It won't breakdown exactly like you wrote...

Not exactly indeed. No self-respecting person on the right would portray giving money to a UN agency as a good thing.

 

[Skeptic]

I hate it that I noticed that too. He's got that evangelical look to him. Not the serial-killer look. More the Ned Flanders look. I put it aside because I know it's a fallacy-driven sentiment but it does sort of gnaw at me.

I know you're not meaning this as serious criticism of him, but as Mr. Basil Fawlty said, "may I inquire how you expeted a DC judge to look?". I mean, it's not as if he was too likely to look like a Harley-riding biker...

Judging from his record (so far) I like him more than not. Best pick? No way.

At least one thing is clear, that professionally, he's very, very qualified. If there is a nomination battle, it would be over his opinions, not his competence.

It seems the general conclusion that he is an excellent pick not only because of his competence, but also because he is well-respected by many Democrats as well as Republicans.

 

[Rob Lister]

All three appealate judges ruled with the government. It seems to be a clear-cut case. Like you stated, it was a overzealous zero-tolerance policy taken to a stupid extreme by a police policy - but it was not prohibited by the constitution. Roberts wrote that opninion as well. I'm going to read the determinations when I get a chance. I'm sure this issue will be debated during confirmation.

I wrote previously that I uncomfortably agreed with the courts decision. Now I'm not so sure. The person (a child) was not treated as any other person (an adult) because of her age. More to the point, simply because of her age. Had parental consent issues been involved I might (likely would) feel differently, but this seems to be a clear violation of:

Article XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can't get around that. I don't much 'dis Robert's decision inasmuch as he and the others on the court decided, I just think they decided wrong.

This is almost...ALMOST off topic. If I had a "Quote in new thread" button, I would have used it.

 

[RandFan]

Article XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is some confusion in my mind concerning this issue. A child can be forced against his or her will go to school. The supreme court has upheld that I believe. Further speech can be curtailed to a point while at school but only if it can be shown that the speech is truly disruptive. The courts have held that the right of free speech is enjoyed by minors. I would say that equal protection is somewhat dicey as it concerns minors. There seems to be a compelling interest component (or something like that as if I know what the hell I'm talking about).

 

[Rob Lister]

I hate it that I noticed that too. He's got that evangelical look to him. Not the serial-killer look. More the Ned Flanders look. I put it aside because I know it's a fallacy-driven sentiment but it does sort of gnaw at me.

I know you're not meaning this as serious criticism of him, but as Mr. Basil Fawlty said, "may I inquire how you expeted a DC judge to look?". I mean, it's not as if he was too likely to look like a Harley-riding biker...

Judging from his record (so far) I like him more than not. Best pick? No way.

At least one thing is clear, that professionally, he's very, very qualified. If there is a nomination battle, it would be over his opinions, not his competence.

It seems the general conclusion that he is an excellent pick not only because of his competence, but also because he is well-respected by many Democrats as well as Republicans.

Para1: I wrote that I knew it was a fallacy-driven sentiment so you should have left it at that; no debate is necessary but I will say that I think the dad from Orange County Choppers would be a great pick. Well, interesting anyway.

Para2: With the exception of your use of the term "general conclusion", I agree with you. But, as Luke pointed out, I think we will shortly find that exactly half of the "general conclusion" will be that he is a nazi child molestor raised by aliens from Planet X who owned a 'smoke shoppe' that catered only to minority four-year olds.

 

[Rob Lister]

There is some confusion in my mind concerning this issue. A child can be forced against his or her will go to school. The supreme court has upheld that I believe. Further speech can be curtailed to a point while at school but only if it can be shown that the speech is truly disruptive. The courts have held that the right of free speech is enjoyed by minors. I would say that equal protection is somewhat dicey as it concerns minors. There seems to be a compelling interest component (or something like that as if I know what the hell I'm talking about).

I would agree with you exept that this case does not revolve around that delicate issue. Here a person was arrested specifically because she was not an adult and yet violated a law that applied to adults as strictly as it applied to children. I don't want to get too far off topic. I should have pressed the "quote in new thread button" but, like the law, the forum was amiss in providing one.

 

[RandFan]

I would agree with you exept that this case does not revolve around that delicate issue. Here a person was arrested specifically because she was not an adult and yet violated a law that applied to adults as strictly as it applied to children. I don't want to get too far off topic. I should have pressed the "quote in new thread button" but, like the law, the forum was amiss in providing one.

No you are correct. I was only pointing out that there are exceptions but this does not seem to meet any reasonable exception.

 

[Luke T.]

There are other folks who would make great nominees to the SCOTUS, and not just Janice Rogers Brown.

I haven't heard any pundits say it yet, and it kinda suprises me, but I think Brown's name was floated as a signal of who would be nominated should Roberts be turned down.

Or she may be being held in reserve for Rehnquist's retirement.

Let the Forces of Darkness expend themselves on a reasonable nominee (Roberts) before nominating a more controversial nominee (Brown).

 

[Cylinder]

I wrote previously that I uncomfortably agreed with the courts decision. Now I'm not so sure. The person (a child) was not treated as any other person (an adult) because of her age. More to the point, simply because of her age. Had parental consent issues been involved I might (likely would) feel differently, but this seems to be a clear violation of:

Article XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can't get around that. I don't much 'dis Robert's decision inasmuch as he and the others on the court decided, I just think they decided wrong.

This is almost...ALMOST off topic. If I had a "Quote in new thread" button, I would have used it.

This issue is dealt with directly in Section V of the opinion. To establish an equal protections claim, the condition must be immutable (not subject to change) and without any basis in compelling needs of the state.

The court found that youth is not immutable. You grow into adulthood. Old age is immutable since you will be old for the remainder of your life.

The court also found a compelling need of the state. This was argued on the grounds that parents must be involved in the rehabilitation of children and the purpose of the statute was to hold children until parental notification was achieved.

The same argument could be used if my three-year-old decided to run away from home. Since the only grounds that the police could use to detain her was based solely on her age (you cannot force an 18-year-old to do the same), the discrimination is based on a well-established public need. Finding equal protection problems based on youth would strike down drinking ages, force governments to incarcerate juveniles in adult prisons. etc...


It should be noted again that the court expressed strong reservation with the spirit of how the statute was enforced in this instance, but noticed that those objections were moot, since the policy was terminated before the case was heard by the District Court.

 

[pgwenthold]

So if Roberts is such a stickler for technically correct decisions, does that mean he will rule to enforce the very clear statement in the constitution that says

"Congress shall pass NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof..."?

Or will he weasel out of it?

 

[RandFan]

This issue is dealt with directly in Section V of the opinion. To establish an equal protections claim, the condition must be immutable (not subject to change) and without any basis in compelling needs of the state.

The court found that youth is not immutable. You grow into adulthood. Old age is immutable since you will be old for the remainder of your life.

The court also found a compelling need of the state. This was argued on the grounds that parents must be involved in the rehabilitation of children and the purpose of the statute was to hold children until parental notification was achieved.

The same argument could be used if my three-year-old decided to run away from home. Since the only grounds that the police could use to detain her was based solely on her age (you cannot force an 18-year-old to do the same), the discrimination is based on a well-established public need. Finding equal protection problems based on youth would strike down drinking ages, force governments to incarcerate juveniles in adult prisons. etc...

It should be noted again that the court expressed strong reservation with the spirit of how the statute was enforced in this instance, but noticed that those objections were moot, since the policy was terminated before the case was heard by the District Court.

So I was right the first time or so it seems.