Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Justice John G. Roberts

Born 1955 in Buffalo, NY

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by George W. Bush on January 7, 2003, to a seat vacated by James L. Buckley; Confirmed by the Senate on May 8, 2003, and received commission on June 2, 2003.

Education:
Harvard College, A.B., 1976

Harvard Law School, J.D., 1979

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Henry Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1979-1980
Law clerk, Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981
Special assistant to the attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1982
Associate counsel to the president, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-1986
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1986-1989, 1993-2003
Principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1989-1993

Thoughts on his apparent anti-abortion stance? Apparently he signed a brief or something in 1973 that argued for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

5 Comments:

Blogger Steven Horwitz said...

He's bad on abortion (I'm pro-choice) but anyone Bush nominated would be. That particular brief he signed off on was in his role as an administration counsel and what he was doing was no different from what Ginsberg did when she worked for the ACLU. Roberts probably is anti-Roe (so am I - bad law that got a good result), but you can't use that to prove it.

7:03 PM  
Blogger W. said...

Yeah! Roberts! Let the fun begin.

10:55 PM  
Blogger Priscillia said...

Since the issue was brought up....Does abortion=murder?

Look, I'm all for choices. I have the choice to have sex or not. I know what the potential outcomes are. The Choice was made. Just because there are modern techniques to remove the "tissue/ lifeform/potential human" that can nearly ensure the life of the mother (or host, for those that don't believe the tissue is human) does not mean that I have the option to choose it.

Another question--should children (I think it's under 18) need the consent of their parents to get an abortion?

12:33 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Regarding abortion and murder, that depends entirely upon your belief of (a) what constitutes "life" and (b) what constitutes "personhood." I believe that those are the two main arguments surrounding the modern abortion issue.

I was talking with Glen and a few others about this at the seminar. I'm somewhere in-between actually; I think abortion is ok sometimes, but that depends on how far developed the fetus is. For me, brainwave activity seems like a fair standard, especially since we often use that to determine whether a person is still clinically alive.

It's definitely a hard issue though.

1:06 PM  
Blogger Joseph Schultz said...

This is a high emotional content issue to be sure. Since this is a blog, I guess I'll offer my opinion.

I am pro-life. For me, life begins at conception. I take this position because after conception, the 'person', if exposed to proper conditions, will develop into a full human being. To extend this definition to handicapped people, I generally say that a person in a proper state would develop into a full human being.

Now the issue of rights. Both the unborn child and the mother have a negative right to not be bothered (in the mother's case to control her body), right? The question is which right takes precedence. Since killing someone seems to me to be far worse than anything the mother could go through, I side with the unborn having the right to stay alive.

I admit that much of this reasoning depends on my definition of a human being and on my rejection of utilitarianism as a guiding pinciple (except in what I call morally neutral circumstances). That said, Judge Roberts is incredibly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. The man has done enough high-quality work in the field of law for three lifetimes, and I believe Democrates will hurt themselves in a major way by opposing his nomination (which they will).

8:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home