Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Rove Who?

11 comments:

Ben said...

Even I can agree that the timing on this was useful as a distraction technique. But you gotta admit, the guy has an impressive resume.

Shannon said...

I hear the title of this post in a Scooby Doo voice: "Rove Roo?"

I don't really have a comment. I need to read up on the nominee.

Sylvana said...

I was listening to the news this morning and they actually said that not much is known about this guy. I'm still doing research into this nominee.

Ben said...

I don't think anyone can deny he has an impressive resume, no matter how partisan. As far as his views and leanings and such, not much is really known as he spent much of his career as an advocate, and thus his views were those of whomever he was representing. A lot of the hardcore lefties are bitching that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade, but the only evidence of that is a footnote in a case where he was representing Bush the elder's administration, and they wanted Roe v Wade overturned, so he had to represent their views.

I think he's a staunch Conservative, but not a religious right kind of guy. I imagine he would not overturn Roe v Wade, but would probably have voted against Kelo and against saying that homegrown pot is interstate commerce (which is correct, it's in no way related to interstate commerce).

ORF said...

That's the weird thing, Ben. His resume is relatively short. He's argued cases in front of SCOTUS (hehe) 39 times, but there's little to be read in the way of other decisions made, etc. That is a touch ominous to me, but it is so for both sides.

As for timing, I think Mike was right a week ago when he said that timing in re: Rove is purely coincidental with regards to Sandra Day's resignation.

Mike said...

There will be conspiracy theorists who will suggest Rove orchestrated the timing of this announcement to get himself off the hook. I think it was just coincidental.

I don't know anything about the guy. But rather than go to the pro-life websites and the Christian conservative websites I'm going to wait to react to the Senate Judicial hearings and react to that. I would encourage everyone to do the same. Rather than start gathering our talking points before the first hearing, let's wait and see what he has to say.

Ben said...

It's just going to turn in to grandstanding against the war and Gitmo, due to one recent case Roberts was involved in in which he said that a military tribunal is sufficient to try prisoners in Gitmo. They won't be able to Bork him, so they'll just turn him in to a proxy for Bush and attack him like that, while keeping their fingers crossed that the public doesn't realize how immature and obstructionist they are acting, especially as he was confirmed 99-0 for the Circuit Court.

Mike said...

Actually, Ben, I think they will use the Bolton technique. They will keep asking for more and more information from the White House just fishing for dirt. When the Administration refuses to turn over some obscure bit of privileged information they will use it as an excuse to stall the nomination.

What's funny is the few democrats still holding on to hope that O'Connor is going to reconsider and return to the court. Like Bush would let her take back her resignation letter.

sideshow bob said...

I saw the best legal minds of my generation destroyed by partisan politics, starving hysterical adult situations protected as free speech, dragging themselves through the capital streets at dawn looking for an angry bribe, angelheaded jurists burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry high bench in the machinery of Justice.

(w/ apologies to Alan Ginsberg (no relation to Ruth Bader (at least that either would acknowledge)))

ORF said...

I really don't see this turning into such a partisan battle. I mean, sure, the Dems will give the guy a good grilling, but it seems to me that perhaps his lack of a paper trail was one of the most attractive things about him in re: the Bush team, because it means there just isn't much dirt to dig. To be honest, I'm a touch disappointed that we won't have a battle a la Hill/Thomas to look forward to. Man, I remember wearing buttons that said "I believe Anita Hill" in elementary school and not knowing what it really meant. Those were the days...but this guy's boring. Even his name is dull.

Ben said...

Man, I don't know about it not being much of a battle. There was already an editorial in my local paper today saying that we need to prepare for a long filibuster to keep these conservative freaks away from the SCOTUS. They seem to feel that Bush has no right to nominate someone that shares his political views. Anyway, I imagine that the far left and the press are going to start clamoring for a filibuster. I'm pretty sure the moveon.org crowd will want one, and the Dems seem to be kowtowing to them these days.