Kiddie court

The most striking thing about John Roberts — so far — is how damned young he looks. To make their legal legacies last longer, presidents will be drafting justices the way they draft basketball players, out of high school. Better yet: Junior high, when they’re still virgins and haven’t inhaled and haven’t written anything embarrassing except for that poetry they had to do in English class.

Kiddie court

Kiddie court

: The most striking thing about John Roberts — so far — is how damned young he looks. To make their legal legacies last longer, presidents will be drafting justices the way they draft basketball players, out of high school. Better yet: Junior high, when they’re still virgins and haven’t inhaled and haven’t written anything embarrassing except for that poetry they had to do in English class.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Remedial ‘good hair’ is definitely a consideration also much to be desired. I still think having some one on the Court who has a view of the world outside the law might be a real plus. Maybe next nominee.

  • yup

    view of the world outside the law? what the heck does that mean? if you nominate someone with a background in , will that person have a view of the world outside of the inserted background?

  • http://punditdrome.com Scott Ferguson

    Oh, so a Supreme Court justice’s looks should be a consideration. Maybe Bush should have nominated Wilfred Brimley. That would be one heckuva great choice, huh.

  • http://punditdrome.com Scott Ferguson

    Oops, that’s “Wilford” not “Wilfred.” Whatever. I’m sure with his looks, you could trust his opinions.

  • Right of Center

    If we are to be ruled by Judicially legislative “tyrants” shouldn’t we hope for long lived ones?
    Not to mention it now takes hundreds of millions of dollars to get a nominee into the King’s chair. Our society simply can’t afford to do that every five years.

  • John

    John Roberts, John Edwards — it’s obvious there’s a glut of 50-year-old lawyers named John with perfect hair and young faces running around America today.

  • http://www.ochsenhirt.com Fred

    Joking aside, John Roberts is 50. Joseph Story was 32 when he was appointed to the Court in 1811, where he served for 34 years.

  • Franky

    I don’t follow Supremem Court or abortion issues that much, but I’m presuming with Roberts alone it’s not enough to tip the balance yet on Roe vs Wade. But assuming that by the end of the Bush reign, we will have a supreme court that rules against Roe vs Wade, what does everyone think that will do to Republican election chances?
    I’m sort of guessing that many soft opponents of abortion might actually miss it when their 15-year old daughter comes home and is facing the choice between dropping out to have the baby and continuing to study.

  • Right of Center

    “John Roberts is 50. Joseph Story was 32 when he was appointed to the Court in 1811, where he served for 34 years.”
    But you have to account for inflation. In 1811 the average life expectancy in the US was 43. (now it is 77) So in *inflation* adjusted years John Roberts is 27!

  • Right of Center

    Franky,
    I think you are too subject to NARAL propaganda. While the social conservatives have a problem with abortion, they do not constitute all conservatives of republicans.
    The real issue is that this should be decided in state legislatures not the courts. Each state should decide for itself the legality of abortion. It is not the 50′s anymore. I don’t think many states would outlaw it. But some will constrain it. (which I think is good.) But at any rate it should be up to each state.
    The problem with judicial “legislation” is that it can be instituted or revoked at the whim of 5 Justices who have no accountability. Is this democratic? No. That is precisely why they are not to do it!
    Restore the Judiciary to *rulling* on the law, not making it.

  • owl

    This one works for me……plus has the added benefit of nice crinkle laugh lines that suggest a pleasant personality.
    Only one problem I have heard this morning. He absolutely refuses to turn over all the memos, papers and emails he has ever written in this lifetime……plus…..can you believe it…..he won’t even tell them what his decisions are BEFORE he hears the case? Tough one to overcome. Whatever is this man thinking? How could he ever hope to be confirmed when he does not do the above? Oh wait, also just in….he intends to trample on our civil liberties and those of a toad that lives in a particular spot. What is that? He won’t answer the questions? Ut oh….beginning to remind me of every single one of those “grand confirmation hearings”. I tell you it is outrageous. He did not give us that copy of his highly suspect memo to his wife, when he described his views on family values. Now that ….could…..include his opinion ov Roe vs Wade. Sorry, can’t vote him out of Grand Committee until he coughs it up.
    Oh well, isn’t it awful how we can all be fooled by a pretty face? And he looked like such a nice man for 10 minutes.

  • http://www.focusedperformance.com/blogger.html Frank Patrick

    Jeff — Haven’t you noticed that priests and police are also looking awful young these days? It comes with the gray hair.

  • Franky

    Right of Center,
    Hey state’s rights are exactly what I believe in – unfortunately it seems I’m once again at odds with this government on issues such as medical marijuana. The republicans of today, controlling all the executive, long abandoned ever feigning support for states’ rights.
    If Alabama wants to hold a referendum and ban abortion, more power to them. But I think we can agree that it won’t stop there.

  • Right of Center

    Franky,
    I am confused by your seeming contridiction. You seem to be infavor of Roe V. Wade. If Roe v. Wade were overturned then it would revert back to the states where it had been previously. In fact, the ONLY way a referendum *could* be held in Alabama (as you suggest you favor) would be *if* Roe v. Wade *were* overturned.
    The only reason congress is involved in the issue at all (as in a partial birth abortion bans, etc.) is precisely *because* of Roe v. Wade which makes federal involvement necessary in the first place.

  • Charlie (Colorado)

    Since he’s 7 months older than I am, and I’m feeling a little old as my 50th birthday approaches, all I can say is “Bless you.”

  • Franky

    Right of center,
    As I explained above I don’t follow this closely so i appreciate your knowledge on the subject.
    A question – surely social conservatives are aiming for a complete repeal of abortion in the country and not just returning it to states’ rights? They consider abortion murder, so I don’t see how anti-abortionists will sit by knowing that states such as california and NY continue the practice even if its outlawed in Alabama.

  • Right of Center

    They won’t sit by, surely. But what is easier? Convincing a plurality of voters in California to outlaw Abortion? Or getting (at some point) 5 Justices to swing your way?
    You “live” by judicial tyranny then you “die” by judicial tyranny.
    This isn’t as it should be.
    The laws we constitute amongst ourselves to govern ourselves should be written by ourselves (via our representatives). If California decides to have legal abortion, fine. If Alabama chooses not to, fine.
    To so twist a Constitutional right of privacy as to deduce a right to terminate pregnancy is perverse. In fact it is nonsense.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    “view of the world outside the law? what the heck does that mean? if you nominate someone with a background in , will that person have a view of the world outside of the inserted background?”
    It refers to judges who have other experience, such as political, public service, teaching, other than law firm/court experience exclusive of the rest of possible experience. You might have encountered the concept of ‘enrichment’ somewhere.
    A variety of experiences makes a superior background for understanding what relation laws have to the world at large.

  • Kevin p

    The memo’s are from his solicitor general duties and have lawyer- client privledge and many who have held the same position, both democratic and republican, have said that they can’t be released and have future SG’s do their job properly.
    Roberts is just following the precedent that Ginsburg and Breyer created in the last 2 SCOTUS nomination hearings as far as commenting on cases that might come before the court or on hypothetical cases/. If it was good enough for Clintons picks then Bush should have the same right.

  • Kevin p

    The memo’s are from his solicitor general duties and have lawyer- client privledge and many who have held the same position, both democratic and republican, have said that they can’t be released and have future SG’s do their job properly.
    Roberts is just following the precedent that Ginsburg and Breyer created in the last 2 SCOTUS nomination hearings as far as commenting on cases that might come before the court or on hypothetical cases/. If it was good enough for Clintons picks then Bush should have the same right.