I think it's too soon to start opposing Judge John G. Roberts. Most of us knew nothing about him before tonight. He's only been a Judge for two years. Before that he was deputy solicitor general. The legal arguments he made while working for the Government or as a corporate lawyer may or may not reflect his personal values, or how he would rule as a Supreme Court Justice.

I'd like to know more about him before I make up my mind. I don't think it helps that liberal groups are coming out swinging so soon. It has the appearance that they would oppose anyone Bush would nominate.

It's obvious we're going to get a conservative Supreme Court nominee. Bush is President and the Senate is Republican-dominated. For now, I'm just happy it wasn't a rabid right-winger like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones (not to be confused with Edith Clement, who probably would have been okay,) Ted Olson or one of the Fourth Circuit judges that were reportedly under consideration.

I'm more worried about Bush's second pick, the one he will make when Chief Justice Rehnquist retires, when his key aides may be out from under the gun of, or already indicted by, Fitzgerald's grand jury.

I do not want to fall into the Administration's trap of getting so distracted by this judicial nomination that I don't pay attention to other injustices of the Administration, like the war in Iraq, the detainees, military tribunals, the potential abolition of habeas corpus in death cases, and Rove Gate, to name a few.

So, when there's something big to report on Judge John G. Roberts I will, but I'm done with the topic for now.

Update: Sentencing Law and Policy:

I just received an interesting report that there is a rumor going around on a national death penalty discussion list "that Roberts is a 'pro-life conservative' and personally opposed to the death penalty."

**********
Original Post

The Washington Post reports:

CRIMINAL MATTERS: His votes on the bench have been mixed. He ruled in favor of a man who challenged his sentence for fraud, then said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a train station in Washington.

POLICE SEARCHES: Joined an appeals court ruling in 2004 that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are looking for evidence of a crime.

MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Roberts was part of a unanimous decision last week that allowed the Pentagon to proceed with plans to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts couldn't come at a better time for Bush. What better way to distract us from the Karl Rove issue?

Murray Waas is breaking another story about Karl Rove, and why grand jury investigators believe Rove didn't tell the truth in the first interview....when he claimed, as we wrote here, that he learned of Valerie Plame's identity from a journalist, but he couldn't remember which one. Waas writes:

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said.

Crooks and Liars has the letter that eleven former CIA agents sent to Congress yesterday about the outing of Valerie Plame. They are angry. They explain that contrary to White House talking points, Valerie Plame most definitely was undercover.

The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who "work at a desk" in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.

The agents are not making a judgment about whether disclosure violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. They acknowledge they are not lawyers.

Here is the report (pdf) by People for the American Way on Judge John G. Roberts. Here's the overview:

Roberts’s record is a disturbing one. Among other things, Roberts is hostile to women’s reproductive freedom, and he has taken positions in religious liberty and free speech cases that were detrimental to those fundamental rights. Roberts has limited judicial experience, but even his short tenure as a judge raises serious concerns about his ideology and judicial philosophy.

ScotusBlog's sister blog, Supreme Court Nomination Blog, has these criminal law opinions written

Fourth Amendment
United States v. Lawson, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 10798 - Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Roberts rejected numerous challenges to a conviction for bank robbery. In particular, he upheld the warrantless search of defendant's car. Judge Roberts found that the fact that the car matched an eyewitness description and that officers saw latex gloves on the front seat created probable cause for the search.

Criminal Sentencing
United States v. Mellen, 393 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 2004) - Writing for the majority over a dissent by Judge Henderson, Judge Roberts found that the district court had erred in attributing to the defendant the value of all of the goods stolen by his wife and stored in their shared home. Judge Roberts held that mere knowledge was insufficient to render the defendant responsible for the goods. Instead, the government had to establish that he had agreed to participate in the conspiracy or taken affirmative steps to facilitate the crime.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
United States v. Toms, 396 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2005) - Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Roberts rejected the defendant's claim that his lawyer failed to provide effective assistance because he failed to call a witness and stipulated to a conviction that had been expunged. Judge Roberts found that some aspects of the challenged conduct were strategic choices and therefore "virtually unchallengable," and that the erroneous stipulation was unreasonable but harmless.

Via the Washington Post, the text of Supreme Court nominee John Robert's 2003 confirmation hearing:

• Part One (pdf)

• Part Two (pdf)

Here is the text of Sen. Dick Durbin's statement on Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. Durbin is on Larry King Live now.

“The next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for years to come. Even if a Supreme Court nominee is honest and professionally competent, that person must also be committed to protecting the rights and liberties that are at the core of our democracy.”

“The President had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process.”

“Now the Judiciary Committee will begin its work. For my part, I will look for one thing -- will this nominee strive to protect the rights of all Americans or will he be a judicial activist with an ideological agenda rather than an independent judge with an open mind.”

The pro-choice groups are already weighing in on Bush's selection of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts as a nominee for the Supreme Court. Just in from NARAL:

• As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”

Update: The ACLU weighs in:

Update: Senator Jeff Sessions, one of radical right cabal, is praising the decision on CNN, he can hardly contain his glee. So Bush sold out to the radical right. Plus, Sessions already lies. He said on CNN Roberts was overwhelmingly approved both in the Judiciary Committee and in the full Senate. Reuters reports:

He joined the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in May 2003 after a protracted confirmation fight in the Senate.

Sen. John Cornyn just got busted with the same lie on Fox News. He said Roberts was unanimously voted out of the Judiciary Committee. The reporter corrected him and said Kennedy, Durbin and Schumer voted against him.

************
It's not Edith Clement, It's D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. Here's Harry Reid's statement:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

The President has made his choice. Now the Senate will do its job of deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

The President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts¹s record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness. The nominee will have an opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make his case to the American people.

I will not pre-judge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts.

He's a former law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court as a lawyer.

I really hadn't intended to write anything about Harry Potter, but I thought this mini-review at the blog Hip Hop Music was worth mentioning:

I'm 20 Pages Into Harry Potter, and I'm Pissed.

When the last Potter book came out I was pleased to find JK Rowling finally adding a Black wizard into the mix, with the introduction of Kingsley Shacklebolt. It was a shining moment for our people.. Halle Berry wept.

While reading along I always imagined Shacklebolt as portrayed by Sam Jackson, hoping he'd evolve into a badass hero a la Mace Windu.

But as I start the latest book what do I find? Shacklebolt has been reassigned as a secretary.

A SECRETARY.

What the hell kind of Spook Who Sat by the Door sh!t is this???

This is a little off topic for me, but I got this e-mail, and wanted to share it. Just another reason the Republicans should not be in charge.

My 20 year old was diagnosed with Manic-Depression at the age of 8 years old. For the past 12 years he had been on 9 medications a day to maintain a reasonable level of stability. In June of 2005 his Doctor placed him on a new anti-convulsant/mood stabilizer along with an atypical antipsychotic that achieved a level of stability and functioning we had not seen in the last 12 years.

I went to refill his medication on July 19 , 2005 and much to my surprise, dismay and disbelief Medicaid refused to cover this Medically necessary drug , which by the way ran $130.00 for a 20 day supply. I spoke to our pharmacist, and my son's doctor, only to find out that even they had no for warning as to this Medication being on the list of No Longer Covered medications with Medicaid....

My son's doctor even applied for Medicaid authorization as Medically necessary for my son. He was promptly refused by Medicaid. It absolutely amazes me that a politician can make medical decisions of such proportions that can and will affect many people in a very negative way.

My son has gone from 9 medications a day down to 2 a day with the most impressive results and increase of functioning we have seen. I am totally in shock. This new medication has made it possible for my son to become a productive functioning member of society.

(continued below)