Alito's First Day

Gina Holland of AP reports: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court's conservatives in a death penalty case on his first day on the court. Handling his first case, Alito sided with five other justices Wednesday evening in refusing to allow Missouri to execute inmate Michael Taylor.   Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the an execution stay issued by an appeals court, but Alito sided with the majority in turning down Missouri's last-minute request to allow a midnight execution....

By Fred Barbash | February 2, 2006; 05:40 AM ET | Comments (26)

New Circuit Assignments for Justices

The Supreme Court, in this order, has reshuffled the circuits among the justices as follows: District of Columbia Circuit--Chief Justice Roberts First Circuit--Justice Souter. Second Circuit--Justice Ginsburg Third Circuit--Justice Souter Fourth Circuit--CJ Roberts Fifth Circuit-Justice Scalia Sixth Circuit-Justice Stevens Seventh Circuit--Justice Stevens Eighth Circuit--Justice Alito Ninth Circuit--Justice Kennedy Tenth Circuit--Justice Breyer Eleventh Circuit--Justice Thomas Federal Circuit--CJ Roberts The circuit justice receives and decides emergency petitions--for such matters as stays of execution--from his or her assigned circuit. Click here for a map of the circuits....

By Fred Barbash | February 1, 2006; 12:38 PM ET | Comments (58)

Alito Debate Underway in Senate

  The Senate has begun what is expected to be a week-long intermittent debate on the confirmation of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., for the U.S. Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.   The Republican leadership is hoping for a vote before  the President's State of the Union  address on Jan. 31.   Click here to watch live video.    Click here for Charles Babington's preview of the debate from today's Washington Post....

By Fred Barbash | January 25, 2006; 11:38 AM ET | Comments (18)

Spin on Alito Memo

Wendy Long in Bench Memos at NR Online: The May 30, 1985 memo released today by the National Archives, written by Judge Alito when he was a Reagan administration lawyer working under Solicitor General Charles Fried, reflects tactical litigation advice that Judge Alito, writing 20 years ago as a deputy lawyer in the Office of the Solicitor General, gave to his client, the pro-life administration of President Ronald Reagan. The administration ultimately did not follow some of that advice: it called for the overturning of Roe, whereas Judge Alito had urged that the administration not call for Roe's reversal. Excerpt from Background Briefing at DOJ today by Rachel Brand, Assistant Attorney General: RACHEL BRAND  I know that there is some press coverage already about the Thornburgh -- (inaudible) -- memo that came out from the National Archives today, so I was going to say a couple of sentences about that...

By Fred Barbash | November 30, 2005; 06:27 PM ET | Comments (4)

C-SPAN to Air Same Day Oral Argument in Abortion Case

The following release comes from C-Span: Wednesday's one-hour, Supreme Court oral argument in a noted abortion case will air at approximately 12:15 p.m. ET on C-SPAN, C-SPAN Radio and c-span.org as soon as the recording is released by the Court. The Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to the same-day release of audio recordings of oral arguments in two upcoming cases of particular national interest, in response to a request from C-SPAN....

By Fred Barbash | November 28, 2005; 04:35 PM ET | Comments (4)

Reagan Administration Brief Seeking Reversal of Roe

  In light of the document made public yesterday in which Samuel A. Alito discussed his contributions to and support for Reagan administration policies on abortion, here is the brief filed by then Acting Solicitor General Charles Fried in 1985 asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.  The amicus brief was submitted in Thornburgh et al. v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. (No. 84-495, 84-1379). Fried signed the brief along with Richard K. Willard, Carolyn B. Kuhl, John F. Cordes and John M. Rogers. Here are a few pertinent excerpts, with apologies for some bad line breaks I can't seem to fix: ......The the textual, doctrinal and historical basis for Roe v. Wade is so far flawed, and, as thesecases illustrate,is a source of such instability in the law that this Court should reconsider that decision and on reconsideration abandon it. ..... Where a judicial...

By Fred Barbash | November 15, 2005; 10:50 AM ET | Email a Comment

Yale and Alito

The law blogosphere is restless today in reaction to a  New York Times piece about the reaction to Alito (and Justice Thomas, and Robert Bork) at Yale. The piece, by Adam Liptak, said: If the past is any guide, the bond between this conservative judge and this law school, which has traditionally attracted liberal students and faculty members, is about to be tested. And the early indications here are that Judge Alito will face some of the hostility that met the last two Supreme Court nominees with connections to the school, Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas..... The dominant view, based on a day of interviews at the law school, appeared to be that Judge Alito's jurisprudence represented a betrayal of the law school's liberal values. For reaction see, among others: Concurring Opinions, Althouse, the Volokh Conspiracy, The Right Coast, and, of course, the Yale Law Federalist Society,...

By Fred Barbash | November 13, 2005; 06:18 PM ET | Email a Comment

Rove Speech Excerpts: "Our Courts are In Crisis"

Here, by popular demand,  are some excerpts from Karl Rove's speech Thursday to the Federalist Society via Federal News Service: MR. ROVE: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Enough! Thank you. Enough! Sit down, you'll get your dinner quicker. Thank you, David. Thank you very much for the generous introduction. You know, for some, it's the Bavarian Illuminati. For others, it's the Knights Templar. In recent years, it's been the trilateralists; the Bilderbergers, or the neocons. But for Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Schumer and Leahy, the most successful conspiracy in the history of the mankind is one of the most visible and open, as shown by your willingness to put yourselves on display here tonight. (Laughter, applause.)...

By Fred Barbash | November 12, 2005; 04:25 PM ET | Comments (5)

Nan Aron: "There is no one worse...."

AP: Liberal groups are planning a new effort against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito after seeing some Senate Democrats virtually dismiss the possibility of a filibuster and praise the New Jersey jurist in the two weeks since his nomination. "Next week, the press, the American people will begin to hear a very different story about his record, his experiences, some of the judgments he's made," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, an organization steering a coalition of groups on the left. Aron said nominees normally get a honeymoon period from the Senate during which they garner praise, but she expects a turnaround after a "major educational process" next week. Liberals had been afraid that if one of Bush's Supreme Court nominations failed, she said, the White House would nominate someone like U.S. Appeals Court Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen or William Pryor or Hispanic lawyer...

By Fred Barbash | November 10, 2005; 03:23 PM ET | Comments (5)

Human Events: "Supreme Bias" re Allito

Rich Noyes in Human Events says the media have unfairly characterized Alito as right wing extremist. Thanks to Committee for Justice for the link. Also via Committee for Justice, I also like "Rules for Demonizing a Nominee" by David Nieporent at oobleck.com. He applies it to liberals. Historically, it goes both ways....

By Fred Barbash | November 7, 2005; 07:34 PM ET | Comments (1)

Justice Kennedy Interview

Orin Kerr, at the Volokh Conspiracy, calls our attention to what he calls an "important" interview with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. It is well worth reading at the website of the Academy of Achievement. It is indeed important. It is also the most interesting interview with a sitting justice I've seen. It includes, among other comments, this Q & A:Looking ahead, what concerns you most? What are your major concerns as we head into the 21st century, for this country, for the world?My major concern is that what I thought was the golden age of peace seems farther from our reach than I would have thought ten years ago. My major concerns are that there is not an understanding and a commitment to the idea that the American constitutional system and the American idea of freedom have certain universal components that we have the duty, number one, to understand ourselves,...

By Fred Barbash | November 3, 2005; 10:46 AM ET | Comments (2)

Legal Times on Sekulow; Kurtz, Slate on Coverage

Tony Mauro in Legal Times has this interesting piece on Jay Sekulow, who helped lead the charge for Harriet Miers, predicting she would never withdraw. Slate looks at what the bloggers, and others, are saying the day after, in this blog. The Post's Howard Kurtz on press coverage of Alito's nomination....

By Fred Barbash | November 1, 2005; 03:10 PM ET | Comments (2)

Alito Buzz

More Samuel Alito speculation this morning in the Edith Brown Clement Memorial Sweepstakes. Today's Washington Post: By Jo Becker and Amy Goldstein:... Alito, a former federal prosecutor, has strong enough credentials to satisfy and reunite Bush's conservative base, which fractured over the Miers nomination. Nicknamed "Scalito" for his philosophical similarities to Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative darling, Alito has the type of lengthy record that should please many conservatives.... Adding to the speculation were reports by those close to the process that Alito arrived in Washington Thursday night. Asked why the judge came to town and whether he was in chambers yesterday, Alito's clerk laughed and said he would have to take a message. The White House, meanwhile, declined to comment. Today's New York Times:By David D. Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Bumiller When Harriet E. Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court, she may have taken with it the last...

By Fred Barbash | October 29, 2005; 08:01 AM ET | Comments (25)

Alito Buzz

There is considerable buzz, for what it's worth, that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the 3rd Circuit is the favorite for the O'Connor seat. I cannot confirm it. Nor can my colleagues at The Post. Much of the talk, like this post, is undoubtedly echo-chamber.  Alito is reportedly in Washington at this moment -- but so are a lot of other folks. The White House has yet to learn the value of properly floating the name a few days in advance. See Redstate.org,   SCOTUS Blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, Federalism.com and elsewhere. Have a good weekend....

By Fred Barbash | October 28, 2005; 08:20 PM ET | Comments (3)

The Short List

From the AP: Some of the possible candidates for President Bush to choose after the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination: --SAMUEL A. ALITO, 55: A strong conservative voice in his 15 years on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered to be among the most liberal. He has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. --EMILIO GARZA, 58: Sits on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and was considered for a Supreme Court seat by the first President Bush. He has become best known for his views that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion regulation should be decided by state legislatures....

By Fred Barbash | October 27, 2005; 12:44 PM ET | Comments (25)

History of Non-Confirmation

From the Congressional Research Service: Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed Rejected by a vote of the full Senate: 11 Withdrawn by the President without Senate action: 3 (including Miers)...

By Fred Barbash | October 27, 2005; 12:25 PM ET | Comments (6)

Miers-o-Meter at 60 Percent

The Miers-o-Meter at Slate, having given HEM a 75 percent chance of confirmation a few days ago, is now at 60 percent because of revelations about Miers's speeches on personal "self-determination."...

By Fred Barbash | October 27, 2005; 07:31 AM ET | Comments (1)

Specter Letter to HEM

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sent Harriet Miers a letter identifying more of the issues he intends to raise at her confirmation hearings. Here is the text, via AP: In advance of the Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts, I wrote to him by letters dated Aug. 8 and Aug. 23, 2005, to identify some of the issues I intended to ask. In our meeting on Oct. 17, I gave you copies of those letters since I intend to discuss those topics in your hearing and also suggested that you would have, in effect, a "roadmap" as to subjects of inquiry by other senators and myself from the questions posed to Chief Justice Roberts. I believe it is appropriate and useful to add to the list of prospective issues the subject of executive authority, especially in light of your close...

By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 06:06 PM ET | Comments (1)

AP: SJC Looking Into HEM and Texas Lotttery

From the Associated Press AUSTIN, Texas - A Senate panel may seek testimony from a former Texas lottery official who claimed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers let a company keep its contract because one of its lobbyists helped President Bush get into the National Guard in the 1960s....

By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 01:39 PM ET | Comments (2)

Vitter Not Satisfied

  (AP) -- The White House should provide written evidence that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has a conservative judicial philosophy instead of asking senators to rely her statements or the word of her friends, conservative Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said Wednesday. "What I am suggesting is that I'd love to see more written material that predates the nomination," said Vitter after an early morning meeting with Miers, the White House counsel. When asked how important getting that material was to his vote, he said "It's extremely important. I don't know how to put it in a numbers term, but it's extremely important."...

By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 12:08 PM ET | Comments (15)

HEM's School Days

By Matt Slagle of Associated Press:DALLAS (AP) -- Harriet Miers spent her teens in an all-white high school far removed from the racial and social upheaval of the early 1960s, consumed instead with academics, tennis and even a stint as the school newspaper's assistant sports editor. President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court grew up in suburban Dallas -- one of five children of Harris and Sally Miers -- and former classmates remember a shy student who rarely attracted attention. "I remembered that she participated in a lot of activities, but to a certain degree she was almost invisible at school," said Ron Natinsky, 59, who took a civics class with Miers and years later served with her on the Dallas City Council. "You knew she was there, but you didn't know she was there. She went about her things, just did them, and you almost didn't notice."...

By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 03:44 AM ET | Comments (1)

HEM Support Ebbs

USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll:Support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has ebbed. By 43%-42%, those surveyed say the Senate shouldn't confirm her. That's the first time a plurality, albeit narrow, has opposed the confirmation of any high court nominee over the past two decades....

By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 03:16 AM ET | Comments (5)

Leonard Leo

Jeanne Cummings reports in the WSJ (subscription): As legal conservatives mobilize against Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Leonard Leo has been the point man trying to defuse their campaign. In emails and telephone calls, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society is urging fellow conservatives to withhold judgment. "I have had the benefit of being able to witness firsthand the way in which Harriet Miers thinks about the role of judges and the courts," he says. But Mr. Leo is juggling two loyalties: his commitment to move the courts to the right from his post at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal network, and his loyalty to a president who seemed to embrace the same cause....

By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 03:04 AM ET | Email a Comment

Drumbeat of Doubt

David D. Kirkpatrick reports in the NYT: The drumbeat of doubt from Republican senators over the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers grew louder Tuesday as several lawmakers, including a pivotal conservative on the Judiciary Committee, joined those expressing concerns about her selection. Emerging from a weekly luncheon of Republican senators in which they discussed the nomination, several lawmakers suggested that as Ms. Miers continued her visits on Capitol Hill, she was not winning over Republican lawmakers. "I am uneasy about where we are," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Judiciary Committee who had so far expressed only support for the president's choice. "Some conservative people are concerned. That is pretty obvious."...

By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 02:56 AM ET | Email a Comment

AP Adwatch

By The Associated Press Details of a television ad released Tuesday by the conservative interest group Americans for Better Justice calling for the withdrawal of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers: TITLE: "Mistake" LENGTH: 30 seconds AIRING: Nationally on Fox News Channel SCRIPT: Announcer: "Even the best leaders make mistakes. Conservatives support President Bush but not Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Judge Robert Bork says, 'I don't think she's qualified" and calls Miers' nomination "a disaster on every level." And Rush Limbaugh says, "I am totally behind the president ... but I disagree with this nomination." America deserves better. Go to betterjustice.com. Urge President Bush to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers."...

By Fred Barbash | October 25, 2005; 06:56 PM ET | Comments (1)

Alliance for Justice on Miers

The Alliance for Justice, relatively quiet on Miers in recent weeks, sets out the standards she must meet for confirmation in this press release....

By Fred Barbash | October 25, 2005; 04:29 PM ET | Email a Comment

Miers-o-Meter

At Slate, Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson and Dahlia Lithwick have launched a Miers-o-Meter, which, at the moment, puts her chances of confirmation at 75 percent....

By Fred Barbash | October 25, 2005; 03:41 AM ET | Comments (7)

March of Mediocrity

"Miers Joins Long March of Mediocrity to Court," writes Andrew Ferguson of Bloomberg.com: President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has touched off many amusing spectacles these last few weeks -- including the insistence, by critics of the nomination, on the immeasurably high standards of intellectual accomplishment that a Supreme Court nominee must meet....

By Fred Barbash | October 25, 2005; 03:34 AM ET | Comments (7)

The ABA Rating

"Miers Nomination Will Test Relevance of ABA Ratings," by Marcia Coyle in the National Law Journal:In the sometimes bitter debate over White House counsel Harriet Miers' qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association's upcoming rating of those qualifications looms large despite past charges of bias in the rating process....

By Fred Barbash | October 25, 2005; 03:22 AM ET | Comments (1)

Bush Refuses Document Turnover

Elisabeth Bumiller and David D. Kirkpatrick report in the NYT: President Bush refused on Monday to turn over documents requested by Republicans and Democrats related to Harriet E. Miers's work in the White House, setting up a potential confrontation with the Senate Judiciary Committee over her confirmation to the Supreme Court....

By Fred Barbash | October 25, 2005; 03:17 AM ET | Comments (3)

Groups Organize Against Miers

Michael A. Fletcher and Charles Babington report in The Post:Conservative activists intensified their opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers yesterday, launching two Web sites and planning radio and television advertising aimed at forcing her withdrawal. The advocacy groups, which had expected to use their vast mailing lists and fundraising networks to support President Bush's Supreme Court nominees, instead are employing those tools to sow concern about Miers's conservative credentials and lack of judicial experience among their constituents outside Washington....

By Fred Barbash | October 25, 2005; 03:04 AM ET | Comments (1)

Arizona Republic: Withdraw Miers

Editorial in the Arizona Republic:Miers is clearly unprepared to serve on the nation's highest court (in over her head is one reoccurring description), and the prospects for confirmation are rapidly fading. Meanwhile, Bush is wasting political capital in defending his ill-chosen nominee. It's time for the president to withdraw the Miers nomination, and move on....

By Fred Barbash | October 24, 2005; 10:24 AM ET | Comments (4)

Fund: White House 'Spurious Spin'

John Fund writes in Opinion Journal:"... After political pushback by conservatives became clear, the White House apparently engaged in spurious spin to explain the logic of the selection. Dr. James Dobson, the head of Focus on the Family, says he was told by White House aide Karl Rove that other female candidates had withdrawn from consideration because "the process had become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or their families to it." White House aides have told others the same story, but will mention names only privately. Many now feel they were misled....

By Fred Barbash | October 24, 2005; 10:15 AM ET | Comments (2)

No Good Historical Analogy

David D. Kirkpatrick writes in the NYT: On Oct. 22, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon nominated to the Supreme Court a corporate lawyer and former bar association president with no judicial experience. On Dec. 6, his choice, Lewis F. Powell Jr., was confirmed with fanfare by a vote of 89 to 1.Harriet E. Miers, President Bush's nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, brings a similar résumé, along with five years in the White House and one year as its counsel. But in just three weeks, her nomination has provoked a range of opposition that some scholars say may have no modern precedent."I would be very hard pressed to think of a good historical analogy," Richard Baker, the Senate historian, said. "I don't think there is one."...

By Fred Barbash | October 24, 2005; 02:41 AM ET | Comments (9)

Charles Fried on Miers

Charles Fried in the Boston Globe: What is indispensable is that she be able to think lucidly and deeply about legal questions and express her thoughts in clear, pointed, understandable prose. A justice without those capabilities -- however generally intelligent, decent, and hardworking -- risks being a calamity for the court, the law, and the country. ... We may grant that Miers is intelligent, decent, and hard-working. The hearings must convince us that she has the ability to understand both sides of a question, to reach sensible conclusions connected to established law, and to explain those conclusions in words that we can understand, whether or not we agree with them....

By Fred Barbash | October 23, 2005; 03:02 PM ET | Comments (4)

Broder on Miers

David S. Broder writes about the Miers nomination in today's Washington Post: For a whole range of reasons, the confirmation hearings on Harriet Miers, President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, have become a supreme test for the president himself. The timing, the circumstances and the substance of the hearings all magnify the importance of the outcome.... The examination of Miers will come at a difficult time for Bush. In early November, his job approval polls, which have been touching new lows almost every week, are likely to be further damaged by the arrival of the first high home heating bills of the winter. Iraq, even after the constitutional referendum, remains an unhealed wound. The off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia could prove troublesome for Republicans. He badly needs to catch a break, and instead he will be offering up to the Senate Democrats -- and some restive Republicans...

By Fred Barbash | October 23, 2005; 09:45 AM ET | Comments (6)

Lott, Browback, Graham on Miers

Alexander Bolton in the Hill: Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are calling for the White House to turn over internal documents related to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's service as White House counsel, breaking with Republican colleagues who say the boundaries of executive privilege must not be pushed.Jonathan Allen reports in the Hill: Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) suggested yesterday that he may end up supporting Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, even as a prominent Democrat echoed Republican concerns about a lack of information on President Bush's pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Lott's possible support could trigger momentum for the Miers nomination among conservative members of the Senate. "More than likely, at some point, I'll be satisfied," said Lott, who brandished a four-page memo of Miers talking points he had been handed. But, Lott added, he is not convinced yet....

By Fred Barbash | October 18, 2005; 08:16 PM ET | Comments (6)

D.C. Bar Dues

Reuters reports: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told the U.S. Senate Tuesday her ability to practice law in the District of Columbia was briefly suspended this year because of nonpayment of bar association dues. "Earlier this year, I received notice that my dues for the District of Columbia Bar were delinquent and as a result my ability to practice law in D.C. had been suspended," Miers said in submitting written responses to a broad-ranging questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I immediately sent the dues in to remedy the delinquency," wrote Miers, President Bush's White House counsel. "The nonpayment was not intentioned, and I corrected the situation upon receiving the letter."...

By Fred Barbash | October 18, 2005; 12:24 PM ET | Comments (7)

Specter Rescinds Account of Miers Comments

Arlen Specter's spokesperson apparently had a busy evening last night calling up reporters to rescind his  earlier statement describing Miers's views on the right to privacy. Charles Babington and Amy Goldstein report in The Post:... Last night, a spokesman for Specter issued a statement saying that Miers had called him after his public comments "to say that he misunderstood her and that she had not taken a position on Griswold or the privacy issue." "Sen. Specter accepts Ms. Miers's statement that he misunderstood what she said," the statement said. Former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.), who is helping guide Miers through the confirmation process, sat in on her meeting with Specter. He later said Miers agreed that the Constitution's "liberty clause" implies a right to privacy. But she stopped short of embracing specific rulings such as Griswold, according to White House spokesman Jim Dyke, who spoke with Coats. The Pittsburgh...

By Fred Barbash | October 18, 2005; 03:33 AM ET | Comments (19)

Miers Believes There's a Right to Privacy

Steven Thoma and James Kuhnenn of Knight Ridder report: Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday that she believes there's a right to privacy in the Constitution, a basic underpinning of the Supreme Court's landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the panel chairman, said that during a nearly two-hour private meeting Monday, Miers also told him that she believed the court had properly decided a precedent-setting 1965 privacy case, Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the legal foundation that led to Roe v. Wade. Miers also assured a Senate Democrat on Monday that she's never told anyone how she would rule on abortion rights. "Nobody knows how I would rule on Roe v. Wade," Miers said, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee....

By Fred Barbash | October 17, 2005; 08:04 PM ET | Comments (6)

Bush Meets With Miers Supporters

   Excerpt from president's comments after meeting with various retired Texas judges in support of the nomination of Harriet Miers: BUSH: They're here to send a message here in Washington that the person I picked to take Sandra Day O'Connor's place is not only a person of high character and of integrity, but a person that can get the job done. Harriet Miers is a uniquely qualified person to serve on the bench. She is smart. She is capable. She is a pioneer. She's been consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She has been a leader in the legal profession. She's impressed these folks. They know her well. They know that she'll bring excellence to the bench....

By Fred Barbash | October 17, 2005; 12:16 PM ET | Comments (19)

Promises?

John Fund, in Opinion Journal, says that during a conference call with evangelicals before Miers was appointed -- the same conference call James Dobson described last week -- two sitting Texas judges gave assurances that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Here is the article....

By Fred Barbash | October 17, 2005; 07:33 AM ET | Comments (1)

Questionnaire Due

David D. Kirkpatrick in today's New York Times:After two weeks of hectoring from conservatives about her Supreme Court nomination, Harriet E. Miers is expected to offer her first rebuttal on Monday, in her answers to a Senate questionnaire. Strategists close to the White House, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, say they hope that Ms. Miers can use open-ended questions about subjects like "judicial activism" to lay out her approach to constitutional issues and to placate her conservative critics without providing ammunition to potential liberal opponents....

By Fred Barbash | October 17, 2005; 03:23 AM ET | Email a Comment

Durbin: Bush and Miers's Religion

Chris Wallace questioning Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on "Fox News Sunday." Durbin is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: WALLACE: After everything you've heard, what do you think of her as a nominee for the Supreme Court? DURBIN: Well, I don't know much about her. I met with her personally, and I was happy that she came by the office, and I'm looking forward to the hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee. But she's been subject to vicious attack by the Republican right. I also have to say that I don't think the president did her a favor this last week by bringing up her religion as part of the reason why she should be considered positively as a nominee. I believe that's the first time in history that any president has pointed directly at a nominee's religion in suggesting that's what qualifies them to serve on the court....

By Fred Barbash | October 16, 2005; 10:43 AM ET | Email a Comment

National Review: She Should Withdraw

Editorial in the National Review:If the president withdrew the nomination, we believe that he would seek a replacement who could unite conservatives -- as he no doubt expected Miers to unite them. But that nominee would be tarnished, perhaps fatally, by the suspicion that the president was forced to pander to the Right. The president, moreover, surely does not want to risk looking less than strong and steadfast. The prudent course is for Miers to withdraw her own nomination in the interests of the president she loyally serves. The president could then start over. Both he and his party would probably benefit from having the clear fight over the direction of the courts that only a new nominee would allow. But for that to happen, some conservative senators are going to have to send a diplomatic message to the White House....

By Fred Barbash | October 15, 2005; 08:23 AM ET | Comments (3)

Morning Papers

In The Washington Post this morning: White House Shifts Its Lobbying Strategy, by Peter Baker:The White House, caught off guard by the intensity of the conservative backlash to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, plans to try to refocus the debate over the next week onto her legal qualifications and away from issues such as her religion, senior presidential advisers said yesterday. Miers Hit on Letters and the LawWritings Both Personal and Official Have Critics Poking Fun   By Charles Babington In the New York Times:   Sex, Envy, Proximity by Maureen Dowd   The White House has lost its mind - and its survival instincts. (subscription only) License to Torture by Anthony Lewis  THE most profound issue that will face the Supreme Court in the coming years is not the one animating many of the conservatives angry at Harriet Miers's nomination to the court, abortion. It is presidential power.Since Sept. 11,...

By Fred Barbash | October 15, 2005; 08:00 AM ET | Email a Comment

'A nominee of enormous legal ability'

Former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully on NYT Op-Ed page:Although it is conceivable that President Bush has had his fill of advice from overreaching pundits, that is not why he chose Harriet Miers. Maybe he didn't want somebody who had been planning for 20 years for a place on the Supreme Court. Maybe he has looked around every so often and noticed that the least assuming person in the room was also the most capable and discerning. Or maybe he remembered how the hardest-working person in the White House found time to prepare the will of a terminally ill 27-year-old colleague, and to spend nights and mornings staying with her and praying with her. Whatever his reasons, what America got is a nominee of enormous legal ability and ferocious integrity, and in the bargain a gracious Christian woman only more qualified for her new role because she would never have sought...

By Fred Barbash | October 14, 2005; 06:28 AM ET | Comments (24)

Question for Miers

Bloomberg reports: The U.S. Senate is asking Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers to say whether she told anyone how she might rule if confirmed as an associate justice. In a questionnaire for Miers, the Senate Judiciary Committee requested any communications between aides to President George W. Bush and interest groups related to "how you would rule." There have been suggestions that the White House gave conservative activists explicit assurances on how she would vote on issues such as abortion....

By Fred Barbash | October 13, 2005; 05:17 PM ET | Comments (5)

McClellan: Focus on Religion a 'Disservice'

AP: "You all want to focus on side issues like religion," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today. "We've always talked about her record and her qualifications," McClellan said. "And I think that we are doing a disservice for the American people when we focus on other issues and not her record and qualifications and experience, because that's what matters when you're on the nation's highest court," McClellan added. White House transcript here....

By Fred Barbash | October 13, 2005; 05:14 PM ET | Comments (2)

Gergen on Religion Reference: 'Very Risky'

In a CNN interview this morning, David Gergen, commentator and former adviser to presidents, said this regarding the White House invoking Miers's religion:I think it's very risky. The president is clearly trying to dampen a fire ... around Harriet Miers, but in injecting the issue of her religious beliefs, he's only throwing gasoline on the fire and making it worse .... It's such a conflict with the John Roberts nomination where they downplayed his religion, said it was irrelevant to his qualifications for the court....

By Fred Barbash | October 13, 2005; 09:12 AM ET | Comments (65)

Joan Biskupic's New O'Connor Bio

Joan Biskupic, of USA Today and formerly of The Washington Post, has written an excellent account of Sandra Day O'Connor's life and times as the first woman Supreme Court justice. It could serve as a guide to any new justice -- male or female -- on how to survive and, indeed, how to prevail on the nation's high court.* The book is informed by interviews with all but one of O'Connor's current colleagues on the court as well as the papers of Justices William Brennan, Lewis Powell, Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun. The starting point, of course, was her strategic position at the center. As Justice William H. Rehnquist told her in a memo during her first term, "I'm sure you realize ... that you are in 'the middle' where you will probably find yourself on more than one occasion."...

By Fred Barbash | October 13, 2005; 08:01 AM ET | Comments (4)

Report: Attempts to Block Miers Appointment

John Fund in WSJ  Opinion Journal: President Bush has told friends that he learned how to manage from three places: Harvard Business School, his experiences working in the Texas oilfields and with baseball teams, and from watching his father. In all three places he learned valuable skills: flexibility, the importance of team effort, discretion, how to delegate. The one thing he apparently didn't learn was that you never short-circuit the standard vetting process when filling an important job, even when doing so has worked out in the past. The vetting of Harriet Miers leaves questions that demand answers, not more spin or allegations that critics are "sexist" or "elitist." It was so botched and riddled with conflicts of interest that it demands at a minimum an internal White House investigation to ensure it won't happen again.... Mr. Card is said to have shouted down objections to Ms. Miers at staff...

By Fred Barbash | October 13, 2005; 06:36 AM ET | Comments (7)

Attorney General on Miers

From the Associated Press: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserted Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would bring "a unique brand of experience" to the high court. Gonzales, himself once considered a leading candidate for a vacancy there, said there is "nothing unique or earth-shattering" about Miers' nomination and said people should give her time to say who she is and what she believes....

By Fred Barbash | October 12, 2005; 08:20 AM ET | Comments (7)

Mikulski 'Shocked' at 'Sexism' on Far Right

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) made the following remarks at a news conference today regarding Republican reaction to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court:"First of all, I don't know how I will vote on Ms. Miers until the hearings and the vetting process has completed itself.  My criteria will be, again, judicial temperament, judicial competence and judicial philosophy. "But I'm shocked at the sexism and double standard coming out of the far right.  All of a sudden they're saying that a woman who was able to become head of the Texas Bar Association isn't qualified.  They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft....

By Fred Barbash | October 7, 2005; 10:53 AM ET | Comments (16)

Warren who?

Report in today's Washington Post:While generally well received, Miers has had a few awkward moments, including one during her Wednesday session with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said....

By Fred Barbash | October 7, 2005; 10:15 AM ET | Comments (4)

Non-judge justices: Their Records

Warren Richey in the Christian Science Monitor reviews the history of justices with no prior judging experience. Many of the justices who lacked hands-on experience as a jurist nonetheless had achieved a high level of accomplishment and stature as intellectual or political leaders prior to their nominations....

By Fred Barbash | October 6, 2005; 03:53 PM ET | Comments (1)

C-SPAN Letter to CJ re TV Coverage of Oral Argument

  Brian Lamb of C-SPAN has written Chief Justice Roberts renewing its committment to televise every oral argument without editing or commentary, if permitted to do so. Click here to read Lamb's letter.   Click here for C-SPAN Website's video of Harriet Miers' speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association....

By Fred Barbash | October 4, 2005; 04:55 PM ET | Comments (1)

O'Connor Honored

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. (AP) -- The College of William and Mary has named retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor its new chancellor, a largely advisory post that has been held by other notables in the past....

By Fred Barbash | October 4, 2005; 12:30 PM ET | Comments (2)

42 Justices Without Judicial Experience

Here is a list, courtesy of FindLaw, of Supreme Court justices without prior judicial experience. It includes: Rehnquist, Powell, Fortas, White, Goldberg, Warren, Douglas, Frankfurter, Black, Brandeis and John Marshall....

By Fred Barbash | October 4, 2005; 11:59 AM ET | Comments (3)

The Morning After

Editorial in the Wall Street Journal: The President could have selected from numerous qualified men and women -- minority and white -- who have spent their lives arguing for conservative principles on the bench or off. We're referring to the Michael Luttigs, the J. Harvie Wilkinsons, the Edith Joneses.Is the President sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the High Court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans? The lesson this nomination in particular will send to younger lawyers is to keep your opinions to yourself, don't join the Federalist Society, and, heaven forbid, never write an op-ed piece. This isn't healthy in a democracy, and in this sense a Supreme Court fight over legal philosophy that ended in a conservative victory would have demonstrated to the left that Borking no longer works. We will no doubt learn more about Ms. Miers in...

By Fred Barbash | October 4, 2005; 02:00 AM ET | Comments (1)

First Monday

    The court opens its new term today with a new Chief Justice. Here is the calendar for today.     Here is a commentary from the Post editorial page.     Here are case summaries for the October, 2005 term as compiled by Northwestern University's Medill School.       ...

By Fred Barbash | October 3, 2005; 04:00 AM ET | Email a Comment

Nomination Speculation

Emily Bazelon at Slate has this piece on possible Bush nominees -- including added starter Maureen Mahoney -- to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as associate justice. At Underneath Their Robes (who said appeals courts can't be fun?), Article III Groupie offers some speculation on the speculation....

By Fred Barbash | September 29, 2005; 07:58 AM ET | Comments (5)

Dayton: No

The AP reports that Sen. Mark  Dayton (D-Minn.) will vote no....

By Fred Barbash | September 23, 2005; 02:59 PM ET | Comments (5)

TWP: Yes; NYT: No

"Confirm John Roberts" is the headline on a Washington Post editorial this morning.* The New York Times editorial board says he's "Too Much of a Mystery" and urges a no vote.*                    The Post:JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.          The Times: If he is confirmed, we think there is a chance Mr. Roberts could be a superb chief justice. But it is a risk. We might be reluctant to roll the dice even for a...

By Fred Barbash | September 18, 2005; 05:49 PM ET | Comments (25)

Sunday Talk Shows

From AP Republicans will be disappointed if they are counting on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to overturn the landmark abortion decision of Roe v. Wade, a GOP member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said President Bush's nominee for chief justice will be a reliable conservative on the court, but not a certain vote against the 1973 ruling. "If your view of conservative is he'll have to decide your way, you'll be disappointed," Graham said. "Judge Roberts will listen to the arguments from those challenging it and those seeking to uphold it and make a decision not based on politics but the rule of law." "He's not an ideologue, but a true strict constructionist believing in a limited role of the courts in our society," Graham told "Fox News Sunday."...

By Fred Barbash | September 18, 2005; 10:42 AM ET | Comments (6)

The Morning Papers

Good morning. Here's a sample of JR coverage from the press. Charles Babington in The Washington Post: Specter's opening statement -- to be followed by those of the 17 other committee members and then Roberts's -- reflects the candor for which the 75-year-old moderate Republican is known. "It has been my experience," his speech says, "that the hearings are a subtle minuet with nominees answering as many questions as they think they have to in order to be confirmed."Specter says Roberts can expect pointed questions on contentious issues, including the 1973 abortion ruling Roe v. Wade. " While I will not ask Judge Roberts whether he would overrule Roe," Specter says, "there are, in my opinion, entirely appropriate questions on his jurisprudential views that might be asked." They include "his views on stare decisis, or following precedents, as well as his views with respect to the importance of stability in...

By Fred Barbash | September 11, 2005; 07:08 AM ET | Comments (4)

The Morning Papers

Good Morning. For gavel-to-gavel coverage of the confirmation hearings, in this blog and on the news pages of washingtonpost.com, log in here Monday morning. Here is a sampler of news stories in this morning's papers: The AP: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor told a University of Florida law school audience Friday about the importance for judicial independence, but did not discuss any of the big issues facing the court -- the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the nomination of John Roberts to replace him or her own delayed retirement..... "I am against judicial reform driven by nakedly partisan, result-oriented reasons," O'Connor said. "The experience of developing countries, former communist countries and our own political culture teaches us that we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong arm the judiciary into adopting their own preferred policies." Maura Reynolds in the Los Angeles Times:For Democrats, more is...

By Fred Barbash | September 10, 2005; 08:15 AM ET | Email a Comment

Hearings Preview

By Stephen Henderson Knight Ridder NewspapersIt would be difficult to overstate the historical significance of Monday, when John G. Roberts is sworn to testify at Senate hearings on his nomination to become the nation's 17th chief justice....

By Fred Barbash | September 9, 2005; 06:34 PM ET | Comments (1)

NY Review of Books on Roberts

William L. Taylor offers a lengthy critique of JR in the New York Review of BooksThe most intriguing question about John Roberts is what led him as a young person whose success in life was virtually assured by family wealth and academic achievement to enlist in a political campaign designed to deny opportunities for success to those who lacked his advantages. It is a question of great relevance to Roberts's candidacy for the Supreme Court. As the late Charles Black has written, no serious person is under the illusion that "a judge's judicial work is not influenced...by his sense, sharp or vague, of where justice lies in respect to the great issues of his time....

By Fred Barbash | September 9, 2005; 04:32 PM ET | Email a Comment

Technical Difficulties

Posts will be delayed here today because of some "technical difficulties" with software. Sorry. FB...

By Fred Barbash | September 9, 2005; 06:19 AM ET | Email a Comment

The Morning Papers

Accounts of the Rehnquist funeral can be found in The Washington Post, the New York Times and the LA Times. See this previous post on tributes to Chief Justice Rehnquist. On Roberts and the next nomination see: Ronald Brownstein in the LA Times:By nominating John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, President Bush may have solved one problem at the price of compounding a greater one.When Bush named Roberts this week to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court, the president met the immediate demand of finding a chief justice nominee who probably could win Senate confirmation expeditiously. But by redirecting Roberts to the Rehnquist seat, Bush set himself back to square one on a more complex political test: filling the swing seat being vacated by retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.Jo Becker in The Post:In 1990, the Federal Communications Commission asked the first Bush administration to...

By Fred Barbash | September 8, 2005; 02:57 AM ET | Email a Comment

The Morning Papers

Good morning, after an eventful holiday. Even with the mega-story of Hurricane Katrina, the nation's news hole still has plenty of room for the extraordinary news about the Supreme Court. Indeed, some are linking the two, Katrina and the court, in interesting ways. Todd Purdum in the New York Times: With President Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low and his administration under fire over its handling of Hurricane Katrina, some conservatives are worried that Bush will forgo the chance to pick another conservative in favor of someone who will not provoke a fight. Mr. Bush may well have a chief justice, firmly in Chief Justice Rehnquist's conservative mold, in place by the time the court reconvenes on the first Monday in October, with time to consider - and perhaps calibrate - the more politically delicate task of choosing a successor for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been the...

By Fred Barbash | September 6, 2005; 03:17 AM ET | Comments (6)

Roberts Documents

Amy Argetsinger and Jo Becker in today's Washington Post:Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. once expressed some agreement with conservatives who opposed entering an international anti-genocide treaty, saying that foreign governments might try to use it to prosecute the United States for its military actions overseas. But Roberts, then a young White House lawyer, ultimately urged President Ronald Reagan to sign it, arguing that to do otherwise would be a public-relations embarrassment on the world stage....

By Fred Barbash | September 3, 2005; 08:07 AM ET | Comments (1)

JR's 'Mystery Years' in OSG

From Tony Mauro's article at law.com on Roberts's years in the Solicitor General's office:Some of the mystery and misunderstanding about the job Roberts held stems from its informal title, the "political deputy" solicitor general. That signifies only that the person filling the position is a political appointee who comes and goes with administrations, unlike the other three or four deputies in the office who are career civil servants. And it also means, in a general sense, that the person is "with the program" of the administration that hires him, as Powell puts it. Beyond that, though, the political nature of the job appears limited. Yet those who have held the job say they have had to fight the impression that they were White House moles who enforced political or ideological orthodoxy in an office that has a long-standing tradition of independence. "We thought the person with this job would be...

By Fred Barbash | September 3, 2005; 07:48 AM ET | Email a Comment

Witness Lists for Hearings

From the AP:A lawmaker who played a prominent role in the civil rights movement, a woman who sued the government to get handicapped access to courthouses and President Richard Nixon's former White House lawyer will testify at Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation hearing, Democrats said Friday. Their selection as witnesses may indicate what Democrats will focus on next week when they question President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Roberts, a former government lawyer in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, is scheduled to begin his confirmation proceedings on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Though the hearings were only days away, about 18,000 more documents from Roberts' past were released Friday from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. The release was delayed because the documents had been mislabeled, but many of them had been released before or were not written by Roberts...

By Fred Barbash | September 3, 2005; 07:41 AM ET | Email a Comment

No Posts Today

Because I've been working on the hurricane story, I've not had time to post here. I will resume as soon as possible; and when the hearings begin, The Post will provide play-by-play coverage in this space as well as news stories and live video. Have a good Labor Day. Fred...

By Fred Barbash | September 2, 2005; 02:51 PM ET | Comments (1)

The Morning Papers

Good morning. As confirmation hearings approach, the pace of coverage is picking up. Kathy Kiely and Judy Keen report in USA Today:Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week by a centrist Democrat and a veteran Republican, an important symbolic boost for his confirmation prospects. Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat who represents Roberts' home state of Indiana, and Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, have agreed to appear with him when confirmation hearings begin Tuesday. Jo Becker and Brian Faler in The Washington Post:John G. Roberts Jr. has been very courteous while making the rounds on Capitol Hill in anticipation of his Supreme Court confirmation hearings next week. But he was far less respectful of lawmakers two decades ago, when he was a young lawyer in the Reagan White House. In one case, Roberts bemoaned a proposal to ease the Supreme Court's workload...

By Fred Barbash | September 1, 2005; 03:02 AM ET | Email a Comment

More JR Documents

JR in 1983 "Our only hope is that Congress will continue to do what it does best -- nothing....."Jesse J. Holland of the AP reports: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts took shots at Congress while a Reagan administration lawyer, saying in documents released Wednesday that a congressman killed in connection with cult leader Jim Jones' massacre could be viewed as a "publicity hound" and that what Congress does best is "nothing." Those two documents were among 420 Roberts papers released by the National Archives that originally had been withheld from Congress for privacy and security reasons. The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library re-reviewed the papers and released them a week before Roberts' confirmation hearing after blacking out much material for privacy and national security reasons. Two of the released documents show Roberts, then an assistant to White House counsel Fred Fielding, taking the then-Democratic Congress to task. Congress voted to give...

By Fred Barbash | August 31, 2005; 07:00 PM ET | Comments (3)

Public Pass Guidelines for Hearings

For those who wish to view the hearings in person, the Senate Judiciary Committee has issued guidelines for admission on a first-come, first-served basis; but you can only stay for a limited period of time in order to allow more members of the public access. Here are the guidelines. For everyone else, it's on C-Span 2, repeated during the evening. Over the weekend, C-Span will broadcast highlights of past confirmation hearings. The hearings begin at 1:30 p.m. on Sept. 6 with each committee member allowed 10 minutes for an opening statement, followed by an opening statement by Judge Roberts. ...

By Fred Barbash | August 31, 2005; 05:04 PM ET | Comments (1)

The Morning Papers

Good morning. Here are some JR-related pieces in the papers today. Maura Reynolds writing in the Los Angeles Times:A week before televised confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library said Tuesday that it had discovered a potentially large number of documents related to Roberts that had been inadvertently missed during previous searches of the nominee's files. The library, which earlier had acknowledged having misplaced a Roberts file on affirmative action that is still missing, said it would bring in extra researchers to expedite a review of the documents before the Senate hearings, which are to begin Tuesday.   David D. Kirkpatrick with the same story in the NYT: The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library said Tuesday that it had discovered thousands of previously undisclosed documents related to the work of Judge John G. Roberts Jr., adding a potential last-minute complication to the hearings...

By Fred Barbash | August 31, 2005; 03:26 AM ET | Email a Comment

More Documents Monday

See this news advisory from the National Archives regarding the release of a small number of documents from Roberts's early years at the DOJ on Monday....

By Fred Barbash | August 28, 2005; 09:11 AM ET | Comments (1)

The Sunday Papers

Here are some JR-related headlines in the Sunday papers. David Von Drehle in The Washington Post: Roberts Is Defined by His Calm; Key to Nominee's Poise Is Preparation. Jeffrey Rosen in the New York Times Magazine: Roberts v. the  Future.   It seems unlikely that John Roberts's confirmation hearings will result in the nominee speaking unguardedly and at length on abortion and other controversies of the moment, or in the Democrats thwarting his confirmation. (Roberts is a conservative; he is also intelligent, able and possesses, by all accounts, a judicious temperament.) What, then, would be the most productive use of his confirmation hearings? It would be illuminating for the senators to ask the man who will be, if confirmed, the first new justice of the 21st century some probing questions about the Supreme Court of the future -- including how, in the broadest sense, it should prepare to handle cases arising...

By Fred Barbash | August 28, 2005; 08:35 AM ET | Email a Comment

The Hapless Toad Cont.

"Is John Roberts Too Much of a Judicial Activist?" Adam Cohen asks on the NYT op-ed page Saturday morning. The piece suggests he is, based on the author's analysis of JR's dissent from denial of en banc review in Rancho Viejo v. Norton. Here is the dissent. JR's views in this case will very likely be a major area of questioning during his confirmation hearings. See previous post on this subject....

By Fred Barbash | August 27, 2005; 09:49 AM ET | Comments (2)

'He didn't write it....We can't tell you who did.'

The note below from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, while only arguably related to the purpose of this forum on the Supreme Court nomination, is too good not to report. Incidentally, I cannot locate the offending opinion piece, which appears to have been deleted from cyberspace. FB Opinion column was not written by Zeidler By O. RICARDO PIMENTEL Editorial Page Editor Posted: Aug. 24, 2005 In last Sunday's Crossroads section, we ran a column ("A return to the rule of law") about the U.S. Supreme Court and attributed it to former Milwaukee Mayor Frank P. Zeidler. The problem: He didn't write it. Another problem. We can't tell you who did. We get dozens of opinion submissions every week. When we opt to run one, we do our level-best to ascertain true authorship. We didn't do enough of that in this case. Submissions to the editorial pages and Crossroads are routinely verified with...

By Fred Barbash | August 26, 2005; 10:32 AM ET | Email a Comment

Mario Cuomo on JR and Religion

Former New York governor Mario Cuomo has an op-ed today in the LA Times: For more than 20 years, some conservative clerics and politicians have bitterly criticized Catholic public officials for refusing to use their office to "correct" the law of the land. They demand that Catholic officials make political decisions reflecting their religious belief that abortion is tantamount to murder and work to overturn Roe vs. Wade and other laws that make abortion legal. Most of the targeted officials have been Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, Gerry Ferraro and John Kerry. But now that Judge John G. Roberts Jr. -- their candidate -- has been nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, the shoe is on the other political foot. Conservatives are outraged that another Catholic public official might be considered deserving of the same criticism. They demand that Roberts not be asked about personal beliefs, including religious ones,...

By Fred Barbash | August 25, 2005; 07:19 AM ET | Comments (7)

The Morning Papers

Good morning. Here are some JR-related headlines from the newspapers. The Washington Post: Group Defends Roberts's Rights Record; Conservatives Answer Critics Who Point to Reagan-Era Remarks and Democrats Seeking Release of Withheld Roberts Documents; Iran-Contra Among Topics of Reagan-Era Papers In the New York Times: Nominee's Role in Tribunal Case Draws Democrats' Interest From the Boston Globe: Liberals bracing for Roberts hearing, Leading group issues opposition; Democrats gear up...

By Fred Barbash | August 25, 2005; 05:48 AM ET | Email a Comment

Confirmation History

Nancy Benac of AP on the history of Supreme Court hearings: When Abraham Lincoln nominated Samuel Freeman Miller to serve on the Supreme Court, an eager Senate approved the Iowa lawyer within half an hour. When Ulysses Grant tapped former War Secretary Edwin Stanton to fill a vacancy on the high court, the Senate OK'd him just one day later. Pointed questioning of nominees -- and their frequent dodging and weaving in response -- is a relatively new phenomenon in the confirmation of Supreme Court justices. Harlan Fisk Stone in 1925 became the first nominee to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And it wasn't until the mid-1950s that the notion of a nominee facing a line of questioners became more typical. Even in 1986, when William H. Rehnquist was nominated to rise from associate justice to chief justice, he thought he shouldn't have to appear before the Senate. After...

By Fred Barbash | August 24, 2005; 06:37 PM ET | Comments (5)

Blogosphere Document Analysis

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt at radioblogger.com recently organized a blogger JR document analysis in which volunteers agreed to review the JR materials from the Reagan Library, each taking on a specific box. They provide their own analyses, of matters great and small here. For more on Hewitt, see Nicholas Lemann's piece in this week's New Yorker (unavailable online.)...

By Fred Barbash | August 24, 2005; 07:18 AM ET | Email a Comment

The Morning Papers

Good morning. There's not much news on the JR front but lots of opinion, particularly on the subject of the Roberts documents pertaining to women. An editorial in the Washington Times goes after The Washington Post on the subject: We've come to expect zealotry on the left in the campaign to derail the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, and in the superheated partisan atmosphere prevailing in Washington it's probably unrealistic to expect good humor. These guys not only can't take a joke, they can't recognize one. The Washington Post analyzed 38,000 pages of documents covering Judge Roberts' tenure as associate counsel to President Reagan (1982-85). Such a task might boggle even a nimble and well-meaning mind, but The Post concluded that its analysis demonstrated that Judge Roberts "consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan...

By Fred Barbash | August 24, 2005; 02:24 AM ET | Comments (1)

Daily Standard: JR 'within the political mainstream'

Paul Mirengoff, writing in the Weekly Standard's daily online content: It is quite misleading....to suggest that there was anything truly radical about what Roberts and his fellow insurgents attempted to accomplish. When Roberts wrote his memos, Republicans had won landslide victories in two of the previous three presidential elections based, in part, on denunciations of the liberal activism of the Supreme Court. And they were on their way to a third such triumph. Roberts's insistence on a colorblind society, his unhappiness with judicial short-circuiting of the political processes, his disagreement with Roe v. Wade, to cite just three examples, all placed him well within the political mainstream....

By Fred Barbash | August 22, 2005; 04:37 PM ET | Email a Comment

JR: Nothing in his record detrimental to civil rights

Responding to suggestions that JR is hostile to civil rights and equity issues, Peter Kirsanow writes in National Review Online: The NAACP's Washington bureau released a statement last week contending that recently revealed John Roberts documents display a longstanding hostility toward NAACP civil-rights priorities. The statement maintains that the documents show several "disturbing instances in which Judge Roberts' legal philosophy and judicial temperament appeared to be detrimental to the civil rights, civil liberties and educational equity issues supported by the NAACP, including race and gender discrimination (sic) and affirmative action." A search of Roberts's record reveals nothing in his legal philosophy or temperament detrimental to civil rights, civil liberties, or "educational equity" issues. Nor has Roberts demonstrated hostility toward race- and gender-discrimination laws or even affirmative action as lawfully constituted. (Whether his legal philosophy cheers the NAACP, though, may be another matter.) The NAACP statement is emblematic, however, of...

By Fred Barbash | August 22, 2005; 12:46 PM ET | Comments (2)

The Sunday Papers

The Washington Post offers an overview of Roberts's legal philosophy as gleaned from the documents released to date: "Sifting Old, New Writings for Roberts's Philosophy," by R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker. Jan Crawford Greenburg in the Chicago Tribune focuses on what the documents show of JR's views on the role of the judiciary. Click here for "Roberts firm on courts' leaving Constitution alone . . . From writings in the '80s to a recent Senate questionnaire, the high court nominee says jurists shouldn't try to cure society's problems." David Espo of the Associated Press also reviews the papers in a piece headlined, at washingtonpost.com, "Roberts' Writings Reveal Self-Confidence." In the New York Times, see "Roberts's Harvard Roots: A Movement Was Stirring," by Janny Scott on JR's days as a conservative in Cambridge. Meanwhile the Cox News Service reports that "Records do not elicit attacks of court pick ....

By Fred Barbash | August 21, 2005; 10:01 AM ET | Email a Comment

JR '03 Hearings on CSPAN

John Roberts's entire testimony during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 29, 2003, will be broadcast on C-SPAN today at 7 p.m....

By Fred Barbash | August 20, 2005; 09:59 AM ET | Comments (3)

The Morning Papers

JR-related headlines from Saturday morning papers: From The Washington Post: In 1980s, Roberts Criticized the Court He Hopes to Join, by Jo Becker, R. Jeffrey Smith and Sonya Geis. Roberts's Hand in Home Rule, Nominee's Memos Shielded Reagan in D.C. Battle, by Spencer S. Hsu. Roberts's Rules of Decorum, No Hobnobbing With Celebs, and Absolutely No Michael Jackson, by Dana Milbank. From the St. Petersburg Times: Liberals setting stage for assault on court nominee, by Bill Adair. From the Boston Globe: Pressure mounts for Roberts papers . . . Liberals want data from nominee's most recent service, by Rick Klein. From the Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Roberts campaigners barnstorm in Maine, by Paul Carrier....

By Fred Barbash | August 20, 2005; 09:19 AM ET | Email a Comment

Comparable Worth: Some History

John Roberts's memos regarding "comparable worth" during his years in the Reagan administration have drawn considerable attention in the past few days. While the concept of comparable worth has received little attention in recent years, it was a hot topic in the '80s. For the record, here are excerpts from some newspaper articles in September 1985 when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, ruled in a case brought by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act did not outlaw the sort of pay gaps between different types of work embodied in the concept of comparable worth. Kennedy wrote: "We find nothing in the language of Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act) or its legislative history to indicate Congress intended to abrogate fundamental economic principles, such as the laws of supply and...

By Fred Barbash | August 19, 2005; 05:25 PM ET | Comments (2)

Boxer and Feinstein: Appear Likely to Split

The San Franciso Chronicle has an article by Carolyn Lochhead contrasting the two California senators' apparently differing views on JR: Although their views on the core issue of preserving abortion rights are identical, their styles and strategies are wildly different. Judging from their statements so far, Boxer and Feinstein appear likely to split on the nomination of Judge John Roberts. Their strikingly divergent approaches, analysts say, reflect a deeper divide within the Democratic Party over how to handle the Roberts nomination while trying to win back the White House and Congress....

By Fred Barbash | August 19, 2005; 03:10 PM ET | Comments (3)

Bork on Roberts

Robert Bork has a piece on the Roberts nomination in the Aug. 29 edition of the National Review. The top of the story is here but the rest is by subscription. Here's the available excerpt: The nomination of John Roberts brings up the recurrent and crucial question of who is to govern America and, therefore, what is to be the course of our culture and morality. It is hardly surprising, then, that the power seekers of the left-wing wolf pack are on the prowl, attacking Judge Roberts with their customary mendacity. "With every passing day, it is becoming clearer that John Roberts is one of the key lieutenants in the right-wing assault on civil-rights laws and precedents," proclaims Ralph Neas, the far-left ideologue who heads People for the American Way. Not to be outdone, Sen. Ted Kennedy asserts that in doubting that Congress's power over interstate commerce extends to preservation...

By Fred Barbash | August 19, 2005; 02:33 PM ET | Email a Comment

Sen. Kennedy Op-Ed

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) has an op-ed in The Washington Post today headlined "Why Roberts's Views Matter." Before entrusting Judge John G. Roberts with a lifetime position on the Supreme Court, the Senate must be able to determine whether he will uphold the fundamental principles of our Constitution and laws to continue our nation's march of progress or whether he will adopt a cramped and contorted view of our Constitution that will turn back the clock....

By Fred Barbash | August 19, 2005; 08:47 AM ET | Comments (3)

The Morning Papers

There were three distinct approaches in today's stories drawn from the Roberts papers that were released yesterday, one focusing on gender issues, a second on comments about national identification cards and a third on JR's general role at the White House. Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker report in The Washington Post: Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good." In internal memos, Roberts urged President Ronald Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly...

By Fred Barbash | August 19, 2005; 02:32 AM ET | Comments (10)

JR: "Goody Two Shoes, Too Nice to Be Crazy"

In a piece entitled "Goody Two Shoes, John Roberts is too nice to be crazy" Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has her own take on JR's memos and on why he "doesn't alarm me much.": The same conservatism that leads him to decry judicial overreaching in the privacy and civil rights contexts is part and parcel of a larger conservatism that distrusts reckless grandiosity. The same quality, in short, that kept Roberts from sneaking off into the woods to smoke may be the same quality that keeps him from torch