"In the mold of O'Connor"

[Brown]

There are some rumblings that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts will be subjected to questioning to determine whether he will be a fitting replacement for Justice O'Connor. Is he in O'Connor's "mold?" I hope this notion dies a quick death.

Judge Roberts should be questioned on his own merits, and he should not be evaluated in relation to O'Connor. It's not fair to him ... or to Justice O'Connor. (I cannot recall, during the pendency of O'Connor's nomination, that anyone asked whether she would follow in the footsteps of Justice Potter Stewart.)

Granted, there are certain qualities that Justice O'Connor had that everyone, regardless of political stripe, would like to see on the court. But Roberts (assuming he's confirmed) replaces O'Connor only in the sense that he occupies a vacancy created by her retirement. Roberts would not assume her role.

By the way, we should keep in mind that O'Connor, who was a pretty good justice on the whole, proffered some very questionable judgments, chief among them being one of the justices responsible for the Court's dishonorable actions in Bush v. Gore. In some respects, it would not be a good idea to put someone on the court who follows in her footsteps.

[davefoc]

Hi Brown,
I am looking forward to your thoughts on Roberts as the confirmation process gets under way.

A few comment on what you've said so far: I agreed with at least part of the Supreme court decision in Gore vs. Bush and I find it at least plausible that somebody could have disagreed with you for non-partisan reasons.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by davefoc
Hi Brown,
I am looking forward to your thoughts on Roberts as the confirmation process gets under way.

A few comment on what you've said so far: I agreed with at least part of the Supreme court decision in Gore vs. Bush and I find it at least plausible that somebody could have disagreed with you for non-partisan reasons. Ditto.

[Regnad Kcin]

Sure. It's only too bad the outcome of Bush v. Gore was a partisan decision.

[David Carroll]

I think that, for once, Bush made a wise choice. Some of my liberal friends may wish to reflexively jump on that statement but it is a simple fact that W would never pick a liberal judge and Roberts, who is roundly lauded as an intelligent, conscientious man and not a conservative ideologue, would appear to be a much better and less contentious choice than Bush could have made. I am glad to see that we might be spared the sort of partisan warfare that a more radical choice might have spurred. It would not be good for the country and I don't think the Democratic party would have benefitted by a filibuster.

Kudos to the Shrub for making the less controversial choice.

[Brown]

Originally posted by David Carroll
I think that, for once, Bush made a wise choice. Some of my liberal friends may wish to reflexively jump on that statement but it is a simple fact that W would never pick a liberal judge and Roberts, who is roundly lauded as an intelligent, conscientious man and not a conservative ideologue, would appear to be a much better and less contentious choice than Bush could have made. I am glad to see that we might be spared the sort of partisan warfare that a more radical choice might have spurred. It would not be good for the country and I don't think the Democratic party would have benefitted by a filibuster.

Kudos to the Shrub for making the less controversial choice. Although I am hesitant at this time to endorse Judge Roberts fully, I like what I see so far. I agree that there are dozens of nominees that Bush could have made who would have been far more controversial and--what is of greater concern--far less qualified.

Some are bothered by arguments made in briefs of which Roberts was a co-author. Arguments made as an advocate do not necessarily reflect the lawyer's personal views. What matters is not the position that Roberts took (which was, after all, his client's position), but rather the way in which he took the position. Were his arguments reasonable based upon existing law or reasonable extension of law? Were they supported by precedent and policy? Or were they extreme pronouncements based upon the notion that "If it ain't the law, it ought to be?" Were they arguments that lawyers ought to be ashamed to make?

So far, indications are that Roberts's arguments were of the reasonable kind. They were not embarrassing or poorly reasoned.

Of greater concern is the notion that Judge Roberts has a sparse record as an appellate judge. Even so, the early indications are that Roberts was a member of a consensus-building court, in which notions of "liberal" and "conservative" have less meaning.

These are all points in his favor.

The determinative factor will be Roberts's performance before the Senate. He is apt to receive some challenging questions as well as some "softball" questions. His responses and demeanor will go a long way toward demonstrating his fitness.

Sadly, one suspects that there will be Democrats who will oppose Roberts merely because Bush nominated him. Equally sadly, there will be Republicans who support Roberts merely because Bush nominated him.

[corplinx]

David Boies has come out supporting Roberts praising his intelligence and thoughtfulness.

I'm not sure what to make of that. David's has argued on behalf of Al "three county statewide recount" Gore and more recently the SCO group. For a good detailing of the SCO groups antics check groklaw.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by corplinx

I'm not sure what to make of that. David's has argued on behalf of Al "three county statewide recount" Gore and more recently the SCO group. For a good detailing of the SCO groups antics check groklaw.

*groan* Anyone who's been arguing for SCO ought to be disbarred on general principle.

For those who don't know: SCO has accused IBM of putting proprietary SCO code into Linux. As a result, they made an attempt to claim ownership over Linux, and even sent threatening licenses to some companies demanding license fees. (Unfortunately, some complied.)

However, as this case has been winding through court, SCO has been completely unable to come up with any evidence for their claims, and the judge has repeatedly sent them back to "reinvestigate." Meanwhile, of course, SCO is sending oodles of supoenas to IBM, who has been graciously (relatively speaking--in their place I'd be out for blood) complying.

The judge has even said that SCO's evidence doesn't merit a trial, but somehow this case keeps going through inumerable legal briefs, filings, "discoveries," and hearings.

And coincidentally, who made a multi-million-dollar investment in SCO just before this whole thing took off? Microsoft.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon
*groan* Anyone who's been arguing for SCO ought to be disbarred on general principle.

For those who don't know: SCO has accused IBM of putting proprietary SCO code into Linux. As a result, they made an attempt to claim ownership over Linux, and even sent threatening licenses to some companies demanding license fees. (Unfortunately, some complied.)

However, as this case has been winding through court, SCO has been completely unable to come up with any evidence for their claims, and the judge has repeatedly sent them back to "reinvestigate." Meanwhile, of course, SCO is sending oodles of supoenas to IBM, who has been graciously (relatively speaking--in their place I'd be out for blood) complying.

The judge has even said that SCO's evidence doesn't merit a trial, but somehow this case keeps going through inumerable legal briefs, filings, "discoveries," and hearings.

And coincidentally, who made a multi-million-dollar investment in SCO just before this whole thing took off? Microsoft.

You had a good point and there was no need to taint it wit h a tinfoil MS theory.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
You had a good point and there was no need to taint it wit h a tinfoil MS theory.

Why is it tinfoil? Wouldn't be the first time they did something underhanded and sleazy. I mean, these are the people who called Open Source "unamerican" and tried to redbait OS advocates. Really.

Besides, I did say "coincidentally." ;) I honestly don't know if MS was behind it or not; it would explain why an otherwise sane company like SCO went down the Wacky Path. Other than MS' investment, which is public record, there's no way to know, and I fully admit the evidence isn't there.

But I seriously contest the suggestion that it's "tinfoil."

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon
Why is it tinfoil? Wouldn't be the first time they did something underhanded and sleazy. I mean, these are the people who called Open Source "unamerican" and tried to redbait OS advocates. Really.

Besides, I did say "coincidentally." ;) I honestly don't know if MS was behind it or not; it would explain why an otherwise sane company like SCO went down the Wacky Path. Other than MS' investment, which is public record, there's no way to know, and I fully admit the evidence isn't there.

But I seriously contest the suggestion that it's "tinfoil."

Well if it was really MS intentions they could have done it through some 3rd-tir sister company.

What else does SCO actually do?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Well if it was really MS intentions they could have done it through some 3rd-tir sister company.

Or any one of a number of ways. That doesn't really answer as to why it's "tinfoil" to suggest that MS' investment in an otherwise unhealthy company might have something to do with their actions.


What else does SCO actually do?

They're a software company, formerly known as Caldera before becoming Santa Cruz Operations and then just "SCO." They are (so they say, anyway) the patent owners of the core UNIX system, which other companies license and make the various flavors of (such as Solaris/Sun OS, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX, BSD, etc). They have their own UNIX, called SCO (obviously).

They also have a Linux distribution, ironically enough, which isn't particularly popular but used to have quite a following as Caldera.

Another theory is that they're basically going after IBM in the hopes that IBM will buy the company to end the dispute.