Charlie Rose on John Roberts' first days on the Supreme Court

[Tactical Progressive]

Tom Goldstein - lawyer who just took a case to the Supreme Court, very familiar with the court. Worked for Gore in 2000.

Justices very happy to have John Roberts on the court.
Almost like coming home he's litigated there so often.
Stevens, the oldest - 35yrs older than Roberts - almost looks up to Roberts.
Roberts is a superstar that everybody likes.
He has different, more pragmatic, concerns than Rehnquist.

Takes on current Justices:

Steven Breyer - academic, ponders the large issues
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: persnicity, very detail oriented
Sandra Day O'Connor: broader conceptions of the law, more visionary
John Paul Stevens: the most polite gentleman you'll ever meet, doesn't talk for the sake of talking
Anthony Kennedy: underrated as a pragmatist as opposed to large legal issues
Scalia: the greatest. Most principled: the Justice most likely to vote against what he wants
David Souter: very deep thinker, won't let go if he sees a problem

Case about federal labor law - fisheries - do you get paid for putting on the extensive clothing required?

Thinks Roberts will be less in favor of State's Rights.
Thinks Roberts will be more centrist than Rehnquist.

Scalia adored by other justices, respected for both his intellect and his principles, as well as his personal relationship skills which he inferred weren't as well developed in the other Justices. They do seem to be a bunch of loners when you think about it.

Court isn't divided; they are extremely tight and friendly.

Tom's take on 2000: he feels the Supreme Court was afraid that the Florida Supreme Court would try to steal the election for Gore and that's why they took the case. He worked for Gore.
Court not at their best in 2000, and he thinks they'd agree with that.
(Not at their best - that's funny.)

All-in-all, given the impressions of his being more centrist and less 'states-rights' oriented than Rhenquist, it's starting off well. I had a sense that Roberts wouldn't be as far right as the hard-case Conservative ideologues. I have the same feeling about Harriet Miers, but I want to watch the hearings.

This preliminary Roberts impression is very good news.

[xultar]

1. I suppose they all tuck each other in @ night too,

[Terran]

2. Somehow I doubt

that Stevens "adores" Scalia, as different as they are in outlook. Scalia isn't exactly an adorable kind of guy, no matter what his legal outlook is.

[Rowdyboy]

3. Thank you so much for this thread...I don't usually watch Charlie Rose...

but I'll make an exception for this show. There was a fascinating book back in the 1980's on the Burger Court (The Brethren). If you're interested, its a fascinating read and gives you an excellent overview of the court.

[Tactical Progressive]

4. Thank you

The Supreme Court makeup has been worrying me as it has the potential to be the worst long-term legacy that BushCo will leave us with. I've been very keen to see how Roberts will do, so this early impression was just what I needed. It was an easy watch if you get the chance.

And thanks for the book recommendation.

[Zynx]

5. Sounds like Roberts is more like Charles Evans Hughes than Rehnquist

That's a good thing.

[Tactical Progressive]

6. Who is Charles Evans Hughes?

I've been cautiously optimistic about Roberts. Actually, I'm kind of hoping he ends up a Souter. I can't help but think that someone as intelligent and dedicated to the law as Roberts just can't be a hard-core rightie. I know he could, but to me Republican 'intellectuals' are people who use their brainpower not in the search for truth but rather in trying to rationalize what they want. Roberts just doesn't strike me as that kind.

And for different reasons Harriet Miers doesn't strike me as a hardcore winger either, more like just extremely religious. Until we know more though, I'm just enjoying the right-wing going apoplectic over her nomination. I hope she doesn't remove herself.

[Zynx]

9. In short, he was Chief Justice for 11 years and generally fairly moderate.

He generally opposed the "Four Horsemen" in their rulings against the New Deal legislation.

[bluedawg12]

7. and that David Boise is the best lawyer alive!

and that he thinks that the supremes are not at their best on short notice and they did not respond well regarding Gore v Bush because the case was so quick.

Lawrence Tribe is the deepest thinker of the lawyers today.

What did Tom say about Clarence? or didn't say?

Charlie Rose is my nightly fix- he is a wealth of info. and I think, a gentleman.

[bluedawg12]

8. the guy on now is ripping the admin. a new @ss hole

over I-wreck, and terrorism, and the shrub family tree.

Failed preznit-ency.

[ruggerson]

10. If this guy thinks that Scalia is not "outcome oriented"

then I don't trust his judgement.

Scalia, in many cases, has ignored the constitution and written in depth about his religious and "traditional" beliefs which support his decision making. He is the worst kind of rightwing judicial activist - he cares only about a (religious) rightwing outcome for each case, not about the law.

He's everything the conservatives profess to despise. A hardcore judicial activist. But they love him because his activism fits their agenda.

[adwon]

11. Scalia just hides it better

He's a great writer, but I catch him ignoring inconvenient facts on a regular basis. Enjoyable to read even when I think he's lost it, which is usually the case.

[UTUSN]

12. ROBERTS Was in the Pipeline Before, So Shrub Can't Be "Credited"

for his nomination. I can already hear revisionists of Shrub's "legacy". And nothing speaks louder of THOMAS's non-entity status than his complete absence from the list.

[Kber]

14. Egg xactly!

He can't outright say Thomas is an idiot - afterall, he will probably be arguing cases before him in the near future.

[Fla Dem]

13. Was this guy on Charlie Rose, or was Rose recounting what he heard? Also

interesting there was no comment on Clarence Thomas.