No More Mr. Nice Guy: The Supreme Court’s stealth hard-liner (Chief Justice Roberts) - great read.

[Faygo Kid]

Excerpt:

"In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

Two days after the argument in the Voting Rights Act case, David H. Souter announced his resignation, giving President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a Justice to the Court. The first Democratic nominee to the Court in fifteen years will confront what is now, increasingly, John Roberts’s Court. Along with Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and (usually) Anthony Kennedy, the majority of the Court is moving right as the rest of the country—or, at least, the rest of the federal government—is moving left. At this low moment in the historical reputation of George W. Bush, his nominee for Chief Justice stands in signal contrast to what appears today to be a failed and fading tenure as President. Roberts’s service on the Court, which is, of course, likely to continue for decades, offers an enduring and faithful reflection of the Bush Presidency. . ."

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin

My take? John Roberts is an unmitigated disaster for this nation. He sold himself as a moderate, and he is an even more radical rightist than was Rehnquist. He is more dangerous than Scalia, Alito or that buffoon Thomas, and he will be on the Court for a very long time.

[pleah]

1. K&R

[ixion]

2. I never considered him a "moderate"

he always gave the impression of being a hardcore lying fascist bastard like every other neocon.

[Faygo Kid]

5. I didn't, either, but he is obviously bright, and I hoped, thoughtful. I was wrong.

He is the personification of the Bush presidency.

[SharonAnn]

3. You're right. but then, I knew he would be that bad when he was nominated. All those

extremely conservative Catholics are bad, bad news. And I have some of them in my family so I know way too much about them. Very dangerous people, indeed. They want power badly. Don't ever let them near it.

And, he's a very young man by Supreme Court standards so he may be around for a long, long time.

It's going to take a strong person to take him on but it needs to be done.

[Eric J in MN]

4. I never considered him a "nice guy"

As a federal judge before he joined the Supreme Court, he ruled that DC police could arrest a girl for eating french fries in the subway.

[unblock]

6. he was never passed off as "moderate"

they denied that he was partisan, but that's something different. they always said that he was conservative and principled. not to hard to figure out that that meant he was a hard-liner.

[dgibby]

7. EZ fix: increase size of court to 11, appoint more liberals. problem solved.

[Faygo Kid]

8. Umm, FDR tried to do that. Not his finest moment.

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the Court-packing plan,<1> was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its most important provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six. . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937

[madamesilverspurs]

9. Never was a nice guy.

His present job is his reward for his help in engineering Florida 2000. In many respects, were it not for John Roberts we would not have had the shame of Bush/Cheney. His hands are bloody.

[nichomachus]

10. I don't know if anyone remembers

but during the last campaign, we were repeatedly told that the top-dog, number-one, slam-dunk reason for voting Dem was the Supreme Court.

Now, Obama has a chance to make a real difference.

I hope we're not going to get another "moderate" in an effort to "reach out."

[Wapsie B]

11. Me either. There needs to be true blue Liberal nominated, not a bluedog, not a "moderate."

[Faygo Kid]

12. It will be Granholm, and she will be a great pick.

Not just liberal, but a consensus builder, like Earl Warren or Brennan - two of the greatest justices in the history of the Court.