John Roberts Baseball Umpire or Supreme Court Judge?

  • News
  • Thread starter outsider
  • Start date
  • #26
kyleb
You never really played soccer. ;)
 
  • #27
24
0
Astronuc said:
Well the umpire analogy does strike me as something a 'good ol' boy' or 'bubba' would say. :rolleyes: :biggrin:

But then I have heard a lot of high level politicians and corporate managers who talk exactly like that. :rolleyes: :yuck:
the wise communicator will dumb down the message for his audience... however, in this case, I don't think it was absolutely necessary... so i can't help but question his wisdom. This is only my personal opinion :tongue:
 
  • #28
24
0
kyleb said:
You never really played soccer. ;)
Perhaps... but perhaps you never really played basketball? :wink:

IMO soccer only gets physical temporarily while the ball is in close proximity. Perhaps you are just talking about the foul play involved in playing dirty, "unintentionally" kicking someone in the groin or grabbing each others teabags. I like soccer, don't get me wrong... the level of consistent intensity is nothing compared to basketball....

let's not hijack the thread... referees, umpires and judges are given the power to decide the fate of the future. When you are known to know the rules, people trust you to call the game. When you know the rules, you know where the rules are grey for your interpretation. Interpretation and perception is more important than truth in the modern society.

If anyone seen todays hearings, you would have seen him NOT answer questions again.
 
  • #29
Skyhunter
loseyourname said:
You know, not to say there might not be legitimate concerns about Roberts, but you're sounding a bit like the people who campaigned against Al Smith in '28 because he was Catholic, saying the pope would be put in charge of the US.
Sorry, but I recently met someone from that side of the argument and this is what they seriously believe.

Does Roberts or Meese?

I don't know, I'll guess we'll see.

When Al Smith ran for president he did not have the catholic church advocating the creation of a catholic nation.

Pat Robertson ran for president and was a serious candidate.

June 20 issue - In 1988, the arrival of the religious right and social conservatism as formidable and entwined forces in the Republican Party was signaled when Pat Robertson received 25 percent of the vote in the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses, second to Bob Dole's 37 percent.
They already have the executive and legislative Branch's of the US government. With Roberts, and according to http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak12.htmlPriscilla [Broken] Priscilla Owens to replace O'Conner, they will have the Judicial branch.

This scares me. It should scare you as well.

When was the last time a super power was run by a radical far right party that believed they had a moral authority to dare anything?

We are approaching that place again.

I might seem alarmist, but I call it like I see it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Have you actually watched his hearings, though? I've been watching them for about the last six hours or so (I think they're finally about to end) and Roberts sounds like about the most reasonable, nicest, and impartial person I've ever heard speak. He's like a robot - far from Robertson or a raving religious nut of any sort. It's the senators that concern me; all of them, not just those on the right. Actually, DeWine and Durbin impressed me.

Another thing: One of the reasons I'm not concerned, and one of the reasons our nation has never come under the control of one party before, is that elected officials need to be periodically re-elected. If the Republican party honestly tried to turn the US into a Christian theocracy, they'd be gone. It isn't going to happen.

Then again, I don't worry about anything. Hold a gun to my head and I'll give you a hundred reasons that I should remain calm and optimistic.
 
  • #31
Skyhunter
loseyourname said:
Then again, I don't worry about anything. Hold a gun to my head and I'll give you a hundred reasons that I should remain calm and optimistic.
I don't want a gun held to my head.

I have already resigned myself to Roberts, yes he seems so reasonable and intelligent, so does Scalia. He is going to present the best face he can. These hearings are not giving us a good insight into John Roberts, especially in the light that the White house is not fully releasing all his relevant papers.

[edit] Here is a quote that echos my sentiments.

T. A. Frank said:
There's no doubt that Roberts is dreadfully intelligent, and he's lucid to the point of creepiness. (One commentator pointed out that Roberts doesn't say "um.") There's also little doubt that he's nearly everything liberals fear. What stood out most about Roberts yesterday, however, was that he's a Washington specimen of the most distilled variety. He seems to have known since the age of two that he wished to be on the Supreme Court. He seems to have done nothing, ever, that would compromise this vision. His worldview seems to be untempered by failure and snugly confined within acceptable party lines. Most important, he knows how to say nothing at great length--which, these days, is an essential skill. It's unfortunate that we consistently reward public officials who play it entirely safe, but we can hardly blame them for noticing. Honesty can be costly, which may explain why there's nothing more fascinating than candor. It may also explain why there's nothing more boring than the Roberts confirmation hearings.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050912&s=frank091405 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on John Roberts Baseball Umpire or Supreme Court Judge?

Replies
57
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
621
  • Last Post
6
Replies
138
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
83
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top