News Supreme Court nominee: John G. Roberts Jr.

[rachmaninoff]

Okay, I've waited 4 minutes and no one else started a thread on this, so I'll start one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush

So, President Bush's 'surprise' nominee to the US supreme court was leaked a couple of hours early. Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 2003, is a Harvard graduate and a conservative who's on the record as opposing abortion.

From my link:

...Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn
Roe v. Wade...
[Roberts wrote]:
"The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.

So, um, let's discuss this or something. Is this a qualified justice (only two years a judge), and will this result in another brawl in the Capitol?

edit to add: His official Biography, in one paragraph.

(And here's photograph from the Washington post: link )

 

[selfAdjoint]

If the prochoice and civil rights sponsors in the Senate see a strong threat from him, they might make a major fight. It depends on how they evaluate Rehnquist's determination to remain on the court. They wouldn't want to take on two fights in one term.

 

[Pengwuino]

Is all that matters in this country what a woman gets to do after she drops her pants?

 

[SOS2008]

Everyone thought the nominee would be either female or hispanic, but I guess not...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/

Appellate court judge Roberts is Bush pick
President to officially announce court nominee Tuesday night

...While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

...Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women’s reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

Roberts on Roe
In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

Of course he is a conservative choice, which was expected. I'll have to see if he was on the list of recommendations from the Dems (doubt it). His background will be thoroughly checked and reviewed during hearings...

Is all that matters in this country what a woman gets to do after she drops her pants?

Sad but true. Seems everyone is obsessed with other people's private lives.

 

[Pengwuino]

Its not private lives... its sex... everyone seems to be obsessed with sex.

 

[SOS2008]

Its not private lives... its sex... everyone seems to be obsessed with sex.

I think it's illegal to have sex in public...

 

[pattylou]

Is all that matters in this country what a woman gets to do after she drops her pants?

The issue is the erosion of personal liberties on our way to a theocratic nation.

THe conservative christians are the ones wanting RvW revisited - and this isn't all they'd like to see changed in this country. They'd like creationism taught, and they'd like hard science presented as having roughl;y equal footing as creation myth.

There are probably other ideas about what a good christian nation should be - including the (subservient) role of women and other groups.

It's not about sex. It's about a move closer towards a Christian Nation and it scares the cr*p out of me.

 

[Pengwuino]

Cept in san francisco probably :P

 

[Pengwuino]

The issue is the erosion of personal liberties on our way to a theocratic nation.

There are a whoooooooooole lot more cases of personal liberties going this way or that way that no one sees as important. Its always abortion, is he pro abortion, is he anti-abortion, abortion this, abortion that... never is he pro-property rights, anti-property rights, pro-gun laws, anti-gun laws... its always about sex. I've even seen polls where they ask "Would you want a highly liberal judge appointed to the SCOTUS" and got aresponse. They then go "would you want a highly liberal judge appointed to the SCOTUS who is anti-abortion" and the poll numbers would jump as if they were being asked to vote on the anti-christ. Its as if the supreme court could just make a single abortion related ruling a year and nothing else and no one woudl bat an eye.

Now I am not attacking or supporting Roe v wade... but I am just amazed at how 1 single issue can absolutely dominate an entire branch of the US government. I think if people were actaully serious when they say its about "protecting civil liberties and supressing religious ideals in government (even though many unquestioned laws are of religious origin)" instead of about being able to have sex with no consequences, they would be talken about other issues. We've debatably lost private property rights, we've lost gun rights, we've lost various other rights... but as long as RvW is upheld, everything is okie-dokie?

THe conservative christians are the ones wanting RvW revisited - and this isn't all they'd like to see changed in this country. They'd like creationism taught, and they'd like hard science presented as having roughl;y equal footing as creation myth.

There are probably other ideas about what a good christian nation should be - including the (subservient) role of women and other groups.

It's not about sex. It's about a move closer towards a Christian Nation and it scares the cr*p out of me.

Yah I really don't see the supreme court handing down any famous "Women must be slaves to men" opinions anytime soon. Be reasonable here. We have a Constitution that offers some decent protection from the idea of a theocracy and the only people who are upholding the US constitution as of late are conservatives

 

[Burnsys]

Heeey didn't you see fox news?! it's a FACT!:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2005/060705fox1.jpg
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/july2005/060705fox2.jpg

 

[pattylou]

There are a whoooooooooole lot more cases of personal liberties going this way or that way that no one sees as important. Its always abortion, is he pro abortion, is he anti-abortion, abortion this, abortion that... never is he pro-property rights, anti-property rights, pro-gun laws, anti-gun laws... its always about sex. I've even seen polls where they ask "Would you want a highly liberal judge appointed to the SCOTUS" and got aresponse. They then go "would you want a highly liberal judge appointed to the SCOTUS who is anti-abortion" and the poll numbers would jump as if they were being asked to vote on the anti-christ. Its as if the supreme court could just make a single abortion related ruling a year and nothing else and no one woudl bat an eye.

Now I am not attacking or supporting Roe v wade... but I am just amazed at how 1 single issue can absolutely dominate an entire branch of the US government. I think if people were actaully serious when they say its about "protecting civil liberties and supressing religious ideals in government (even though many unquestioned laws are of religious origin)" instead of about being able to have sex with no consequences, they would be talken about other issues. We've debatably lost private property rights, we've lost gun rights, we've lost various other rights... but as long as RvW is upheld, everything is okie-dokie?



Yah I really don't see the supreme court handing down any famous "Women must be slaves to men" opinions anytime soon. Be reasonable here. We have a Constitution that offers some decent protection from the idea of a theocracy and the only people who are upholding the US constitution as of late are conservatives

You make some real good points.

But abortion is such a touchy issue because of the emotional charge it carries. It carries an entire demographic. Bishops were telling catholics last fall that to vote for Kerry was a sin. Preachers banished a few democrats from their churches.

Property rights *are* more important. But your 'soul' isn't in danger over that issue. (And neither are the unborn potential lives.) So abortion gets the people moving.

As far as subjugation of women - I don't see it happening either. What I *do* see is America becoming more (*way* more) religious. Stadium seating bigscreen multimedia freeway-side churches to save the unwashed masses. Politicians *using* religion to get votes.

So I don't see subjugation of women happening soon (although whether women even have fair treatment in the worklplace now is debatable), but I also wouldn't have "seen" a pre-emptive strike on a sovereign nation as "happening" pre-Bush. It was unthinkable for the America I knew. Now it's part of our national identity. I rather wonder when we'll do it again.

Obviously the unthinkable can happen. This action in Iraq is responsible for the deaths of (latest estimates) ~25,000 Iraqi civilians, all the result of a pre-emptive (and ultimately unjustified) strike. Daily unnecessary deaths are 10 times as high as they were under Saddam, according to a report on NPR yesterday. And yet Bush continues to parade this around as though it is a sign of the goodness of America. So I don't trust *anything* about the future of America. Not trying to fear monger, just trying to learn from the recent past.

(And if you're wondering how I got onto the Iraq war, it's because that was unthinkable to me but came to pass - and you said subjugation of women is not something you see happening.)

 

[pattylou]

Yah I really don't see the supreme court handing down any famous "Women must be slaves to men" opinions anytime soon. Be reasonable here. We have a Constitution that offers some decent protection from the idea of a theocracy and the only people who are upholding the US constitution as of late are conservatives

You know, more about subjugation of women. When I was pregnant last, I was on bedrest for 22 weeks. Complete bedrest for 10 weeks.

I was happy to be pregnant, content to be on bedrest - but I certainly wasn't on bedrest for *my* health. It was for the health of my baby, and it was well worth it because I value the life of a child above my own.

Notwithstanding that, I was at the mercy of pregnancy. I would have been unable to work (if I was employed) without risking my child's health. I was "subject" to the condition I was in, plain and simple. Another woman, imagine a scenario, could have suffered extreme financial and emotional hardship of this sort of necessity. Imagine a woman who had not planned the pregnancy, who was in a high risk group (as are many women these days), who did not wish for the baby -

Overturning RvW *is* a step towards subjugating women. Period. There just isn't any way around it. The only question is what value a fetus "should" have, and whether this is an individual determination or not. To me, a baby is priceless. I buried one. I know what it is like to carry a child and watch her die.

Do you want me to dictate to you what the value is of an unborn life?

The pro-choice position is that you are capable of deciding that for yourself. There is no loss of freedom in the prochoice position.

There *is* loss of freedom in the pro-life position.

the only people who are upholding the US constitution as of late are conservatives

Are you referring to the split on the eminent domain issue, or is there another case you have in mind? References please. Your statement sounds rather broad but I can only think of one case where it applies.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, the eminent domain issue was what conjoured up that statement along with the various "blue" states that have insane gun laws. To add to that, it was the "left" judges whos opinions were against property rights.

What you must understand is, IRT abortion, that most pro-life people do see the need for abortion in cases of rape or any other form of forced sexual intercourse or whenever the mothers health comes into question. When it comes to people who have sex and have a kid they can't support, I am sorry but I believe most people will agree that the baby's life is worth more then the woman's desire for a night of pleasure. The only subjugation in that case is women who must now take on the responsibility they knew they might have if they do have sex. They bring it on themselves. You don't smoke and expect someone to bail you out if you get lung cancer so why should the same be expected for non-forced pregnancies. Theres an array of products capable of stopping such things from happening as well. All this of course is based on the the question of whether or not freedom is dictated by the ability to do whatever you want, right or wrong. If that is not freedom, then i suppose the whole idea of child support is also a freedom-grabbing decision.

 

[pattylou]

And you also have to understand, that many unwanted pregnancies occur in spite of birth control. And that the "cost" can be a job and emotional health. And that it is wrong for me to dictate to you that a fetus's life (particularly at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks --- ) is worth some value that I deem it to be worth.

You are capable of deciding for yourself what an eight-cell stage embryo is worth. This will be a highly individual choice. And there are no clear cut lines between when a pregnancy will result in a sick child and when it will not. Sick babies are born... *all the time.* If the risk to a pregnancy is 100% that the baby will have severe trisomy 13, and will likely die, and the mom will lose her job because she needs to be on bedrest -

Is it ok then for her to have an abortion?

If the risk is 95% of trisomy 13, is it ok?

If the risk is 80%, but you don't know how severe the condition will be, is it ok?

The *only* clear way through this mess of reproductive glitches is to give individual rights to the parties involved. Watch the illegal abortions, deaths, and lawsuits stack up otherwise!

Just as I shouldn't tell you that you need to keep the safety on, on your gun, when you store it --- You shouldn't tell a woman that she has to carry a baby.

You place a value on guns. I don't. I respect your right to own a gun. My husband does, and I allow him that, it's not my place to dictate that he shouldn't have it.

A woman who places a different value on a fetus than I do --- It is not my place to tell her what to do with it. Period. The best minds in the country cannot agree when "rights" start. How on Earth could an entire society, then, agree? The only "free" answer is personal choice.

And I would *never* have an abortion.

 

[Pengwuino]

First of all, i should have added that if the babies health is in serious question (a high probability of short-term death), abortions should be allowed.

As far as if the kid is just going to be sick for a long time, this is still not a good reason. If you decided to have sex, you agreed to take on any responsibilities that come with having a child. You don't buy a car and then demand a refund if a tire blows out or a engine piston blows after a few years.

And you must realize that the US courts have been putting values on things since day 1. I'm personally required to keep my weapons unloaded, locked and cased by law. If this is truly about individual rights, then why arent these pro-abortion groups masked as "individual rights" groups protesting for my right to have my gun in my house case or non-cased.

Its nice for these people to go out and complain and all, but they should not be saying they are for individual rights because if they were, they would be protesting for my gun rights too along with a whole slate of individual rights. Society, through the courts, have been placing values on everything. The idea that we shouldn't be telling people not to have abortions because society shouldn't be placing a value on the choice doesn't cut it. If you want to say they want abortions because they want to have abortions and that they feel its their right to, fine, that is an acceptable reason but "society can't be putting prices on things simply because someone disagrees" isnt. And again, I feel these people shoudl not be saying there for "individual rights" because there simply for 1 right and, if there spokesmen are to be trusted, not for all rights. I don't see how these people can say they are for rights and for the constitution when they protest fora bortion rights then go off the next day and demand gun bans...

Sorry, half of this thread is just voicing my disgust with people who say there for "individual rights" but are in fact only for a few select rights. I'm glad to see that you're for individual rights as a whole and not like most people who say they are but only talk about abortion.

 

[SOS2008]

...instead of about being able to have sex with no consequences…

I would drill down on this, but I don’t want to digress into a futile debate with inconsistent pro-life argumentation. Moving on...

In the thread about why people support Bush, I'm surprised no one posted that they support him because he "represents the people." This is what supporters say, but I guess no one wanted to have to defend it. So let’s take a look at what “the people” want:

http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. July 13-17, 2005. Adults nationwide:

"In making his next appointment to the Supreme Court, should President Bush choose someone who will make the court more liberal, someone who will make it more conservative, or someone who will keep the court about the same as it is now?" Form 1 (N=751 adults, MoE ± 4)

More Liberal – 24%
More Conservative – 27%
About the Same – 40%
Unsure – 9%

So...with 24% More Liberal + 40% About the Same = 64%, a question being asked about John Roberts is why not nominate another moderate? After all, wouldn't a moderate by nature represent ALL the American people, and not just the religious-right? (And why not another woman? “For her part, O'Connor says she's disappointed Bush named a man to replace her. At a judicial conference in Spokane, Wash., she said she's disappointed to see the number of women on the court drop by 50 percent.”) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/)

As for John Roberts’ position on issues:

He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

Getting back to honest and trustworthy, the item that stands out is John Roberts’ affiliation with Ken Starr. In case some don't remember, the taxpayers picked up a hefty tab for years of smear investigation that ended in nothing. Lovely. Oh and there has been plenty of time for strategy… "Solid conservative vetting, slim paper trail, Mr. Establishment demeanor”

A lot of attention focused in recent months on Judge Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit, who has a similar conservative pedigree and is also known for his jurisprudential brilliance. But Luttig has been on the federal bench for many years and, as a result, has an enormous record of written opinions for liberal foes to dissect. Not Roberts. He’s been on the bench for less than two years and may well have wanted to steer clear of incendiary social issues while he bided his time.

...Roberts said he held no personal views that would “prevent” him from upholding Roe if he had to. What a brilliant locution! He didn’t say that he WOULD uphold Roe in all circumstances — only that he wouldn’t necessarily overturn it. At least one friend and former close associate I spoke to thinks that, given the chance, Roberts WOULD vote to strike down Roe. But you can’t prove it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8643539/

Conservatives working with the White House had expected the announcement to come next week at the earliest. But then there was word from Rehnquist that he plans to stay on the court as long as his “health permits.” That meant there was no point in waiting to unveil two choices at once. And by early this week, the White House seemed eager to shift news coverage away from whether Bush advisor Karl Rove had committed a crime in the case involving the leak of a CIA agent’s name.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8642311/site/newsweek/

Uh-oh, that one probably won't work. “No controversy means no headlines. No headlines means -- we rejoin the Karl Rove story already in progress.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/#050720a

But what really galls me is the usual spin from the GOP:

Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee called for confirmation proceedings that “treat Judge Roberts with dignity and respect” and lead to a yes or no vote...”

“I urge the Senate to rise to the occasion, provide a fair and civil process and to have Judge Roberts in place before the next court sessions begins on October the third,” said President Bush.

As if the Dems lack class, professionalism, and are only…obstructionists? This coming from Mr. “Ethical” Bush, and Mr. “Nuclear Option” Frist:

When Frist voted to filibuster Paez’s nomination it had been pending for four years. It’s hard to believe he couldn’t get all the info he needed or ask all the questions he had during that time. Make no mistake about it: Bill Frist was trying to kill the Paez nomination. A press release issued the following day by former Sen. Bob Smith, who organized the filibuster effort, read “Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judges.”

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=906

All the details about Frist’s hypocrisy here: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=281089

Now back to another American sacrifice for the debts Bush owes.

 

[pattylou]

First of all, i should have added that if the babies health is in serious question (a high probability of short-term death), abortions should be allowed.

As far as if the kid is just going to be sick for a long time, this is still not a good reason. If you decided to have sex, you agreed to take on any responsibilities that come with having a child.

This is just too simplistic. You haven't been married, have you? To put it bluntly, there are times when you "decide to have sex," and there are times when you agree to have sex, because you want your spouse to quit nagging you about it. And as I have said, contraception fails. Your girlfriend has a diaphragm, you have a condom, and she gets pregnant anyway. Is that the same case youa re envisioning?

There are just too many grey areas.

I was suicidal following my baby's death. That's big. Some women (not many) are unwilling to risk another child after an experience like that. My risk for an unhealthy baby went to 10%, for any future pregnancy. 'Would that risk alone warrant an abortion?

Let's say I was one of the women who couldn't bear to have another sick child, because I knew it would destroy me emotionally. I kenw I would commit suicide if I had to endure that again, so I decide not to have any more children. I guarantee you such a woman uses birth control.

As things stand now, should a pregnancy occur, I can take a morning after pill or have an abortion through week 13.

You say that you would personally OK me having an abortion, if the baby had a severe heart defect or some such. Great!

But! They can't detect the heart defect until week 18. And at that point the baby is a heck of a lot further along than it was at week 12.

Here I am, a hypothetical woman who will commit suicide if she watches another child die. As this woman, I know this to be the case. 10% - is a number that looks small to you and astronomical to me. And I no longer have the legal option of protecting my own life for that 10% risk by aborting at 8 weeks (when I have no more than missed a period.) Instead, you only allow me to abort (yes?) at 18 weeks. After the baby has arms, legs, fingers, toes, is kicking and making me crave lobster ice cream. After a D&C delivers an identifiable human being.

This scenario seems better to you?

You don't buy a car and then demand a refund if a tire blows out or a engine piston blows after a few years.

No, but if your tires are balding you get rid of them.

And you must realize that the US courts have been putting values on things since day 1. I'm personally required to keep my weapons unloaded, locked and cased by law. If this is truly about individual rights, then why arent these pro-abortion groups masked as "individual rights" groups protesting for my right to have my gun in my house case or non-cased.

I don't know. I suppose we all have issues we hold dearer than others.

No one, and I mean no one is "pro abortion." Every single person wants abortion rates to drop. Every single one. On my side of the issue we recognize the best way to do this is through open education about premarital sex, early screening, early ultrasounds, counseling and adoption services. On your side of the issue you (seem to) think the way to reduce abortions is to make it illegal. No one is "pro abortion." Any more than anyone would call themselves "pro war." And you sound as bad as a liberal calling someone "prowar" when you say "pro abortion."

Sorry, half of this thread is just voicing my disgust with people who say there for "individual rights" but are in fact only for a few select rights. I'm glad to see that you're for individual rights as a whole and not like most people who say they are but only talk about abortion.

'ts OK. i deleted half of it. And I vented my own disgust on the other half. Envisioning a particular neighbor through a lot of it.

I think most people are not as black and white as some people might like to think, self included.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Here are more stats on what "the people want."

Americans Tiring of Partisan Division on Capital Hill

The same survey finds that a 55% majority of voters believe the two parties are too focused on their respective bases, and as a result, compromise—and results—have become impossible in Washington. Just 36% in the poll rejected that notion, saying the parties’ organization provides as broad a base as possible, and that compromise is occurring.

Pollster John Zogby: “The nation continues to be split down the middle but there appears to be a deep and growing concern about how polarized we are. The President tried to address the situation on the ground in Iraq and hoped to allay the fears of the nation. It looks like that did not happen. Meanwhile, opposition to the war reveals that Americans are just as hostile and intense as they were the day after the 2004 election. The message seems to be pretty clear for Mr. Bush: lay off the partisan rhetoric and work to find compromise solutions.”

(Zogby International conducted interviews of 905 likely voters chosen at random nationwide. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from June 27 to 29, 2005. The margin of error is +/- 3.3 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.)

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=2081262887757&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE

(CBS) In the wake of the Senate's filibuster fight, Congress' job approval stands today at just 29 percent, down from the 35 percent measured last month following Congress' dispute over the Terri Schiavo case, and now at its lowest level in this poll since 1996.

Today a majority of Americans, 55 percent, disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Most of the interviews for this poll were conducted before the filibuster compromise deal was announced Monday night

WHEN REVIEWING JUDGES, CONGRESS SHOULD …

Take as much time as it needs
70%
Review and confirm quickly as possible
25%

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/24/opinion/polls/main697548_page2.shtml

Thirty-five percent said in the Pew poll they approved of the job being done by Republican leaders of Congress and slightly more, 39 percent, said they approved of the job being done by Democratic leaders.

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache...ating+republicans&d=7259AE5888&icp=1&.intl=us

So let Bush and the GOP spew their spin...Americans may just find it is getting old.

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8666577/

Roberts reminds Democrats of 2004 outcome
A legislative legacy at stake

News Analysis
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET July 22, 2005

I don't agree with several points in this article beginning with the title. It should read:

"Roberts reminds Americans of the 2004 outcome"

or better yet:

"The Gang of 14 Compromise that allowed three of the most radical judicial nominees (Owen, Brown, and Pryor) to be appointed to federal judgeship in exchange for hope of more moderate nominations on the Supreme Court reminds Americans of 2004 election"

Wait...remind Americans? Remind them of what they never thought about in the first place?

Out there in America, it's a different story. The latest Gallup Poll reveals that only 35 percent of the country admits to following the filibuster fight closely -- more than will fess up to watching the Michael Jackson trial closely, but a little fewer than the percentage who claimed to be paying attention to the situation in Kosovo in 1999. (Poll reference to "Public Favors Keeping Filibuster Rule in U.S. Senate" http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=16195 )

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=2080756821522&lang=en-US&FORM=CVRE2

I asked people who voted for Bush in 2004 whether they were concerned about the repercussions on the Supreme Court, and they all said they were more concerned about the war on terror, and besides Roe v. Wade could never be overturned. These are the people who need to be reminded about the 2004 election, but unfortunately they aren't paying attention...

 

[Informal Logic]

For the few that do pay attention...

Nearly six in 10 Americans -- 59 percent -- believe the Senate should vote to confirm Roberts while 23 percent say it should not. The remainder expressed no opinion.

But the public wants to know more about Roberts and his attitudes on key legal issues before he is confirmed. Nearly two in three -- 64 percent -- say Roberts should publicly explain what his views are on abortion before the Senate acts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201430.html

Wouldn't it be nice if the Americans who believe abortion should remain legal (at least in some circumstances) yet voted for Bush would contact their representatives and let their voice be heard?

 

[Townsend]

Then Hillary warns darkly: "What we are experiencing today is a real movement to turn the clock back on the rights of Americans."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/22/02122.shtml

Only to follow with,

http://drudgereport.com/flash3hcr.htm

And she says,

Clinton asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the origins of a downloadable modification that allows simulated sex in the personal computer version of one of the most popular and controversial video games in history.

"We should all be deeply disturbed that a game which now permits the simulation of lewd sexual acts in an interactive format with highly realistic graphics has fallen into the hands of young people across the country," Clinton wrote in a letter to the head of the Federal Trade Commission.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/senate.videogame.reut/
Is she for liberties or not? I can't tell...


Is she trying to appeal to religious conservatives? Preparing for 2008? I think perhaps she is.

 

[SOS2008]

Is she for liberties or not? I can't tell...

Is she trying to appeal to religious conservatives? Preparing for 2008? I think perhaps she is.

Would movement to the right make conservatives like her? As for liberties, I'm not sure what you feel defines liberties--that porn has been embedded in video games, apparently without the manufacturer's knowledge, don't you think this is probably illegal? Or have the Godless Dems been so demonized that this would be considered movement to the right?

Back to the Supreme Court...

Bush had the opportunity to unite our country and change the divisive legacy of his Presidency - with his choice for a nominee to the Supreme Court. And as predicted, new headlines:

"Bush won't release all Roberts documents"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8689573/

Roberts seems like the Manchurian Candidate. But if skills, honesty, and temperament are criteria for the Supreme Court, why aren’t these characteristics important for the presidency too?

 

[Townsend]

As for liberties, I'm not sure what you feel defines liberties--that porn has been embedded in video games, apparently without the manufacturer's knowledge, don't you think this is probably illegal?

Um...no, most game makers will allow people to make hacks to the game. I cannot say for sure about Rockstar but if it really bothered them I am sure they would have done something about it already. I see this as an intrusion of my liberties. I want bloody violent video games and I don't need someone in washington telling me otherwise. It is my LIBERTY that is at stake with this kind of government involvement in private industry.

Don't you see that?

Or have the Godless Dems been so demonized that this would be considered movement to the right?

To christians this would be considered a favorable thing...

Me on the other hand, I don't thinks its the federal governments job to worry about what happens in the video game industry.

Back to the Supreme Court...

Well, what do you think about your gal supporting Bush's nominee?

 

[BobG]

More important, what's Robert's stance on eating http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_french_fry ?

Actually, upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating french fries on a subway platform was the only action that could reasonably be taken. But, the decision he wrote may have revealed more about his personal opinion of the matter:

"The District court described the policies that led to her arrest as 'foolish,' and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry," he wrote.

"The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Like the District court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm."

Some days a judge must wonder why he worked so hard to obtain the opportunity to rule on such a landmark case.

 

[russ_watters]

Would movement to the right make conservatives like her?

No...

 

[Smurf]

More important, what's Robert's stance on eating http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_french_fry ?

Actually, upholding the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating french fries

Actually.. It was only one french fry.

 

[SOS2008]

No...

I already knew that. The point I was making in my discussion with Townsend is that a Dem can try to move more to the right, can be highly qualified (have intelligence, experience, etc.), but most card-carrying Republicans still wouldn't vote for that candidate.

Returning to the Manchurian Candidate for the Supreme Court:

Roberts has burnished his legal image carefully. When news organizations have reported his membership in the [Federalist] society, he or others speaking on his behalf have sought corrections. Last week, the White House told news organizations that had reported his membership in the group that he had no memory of belonging. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press printed corrections.

Over the weekend, The Post obtained a copy of the Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998. It lists Roberts, then a partner at the law firm Hogan & Hartson, as a member of the steering committee of the organization's Washington chapter and includes his firm's address and telephone number.

"Roberts Listed in Federalist Society '97-98 Directory
Court Nominee Said He Has No Memory of Membership"
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 25, 2005; Page A

What? The White House demanded a correction. Retractions were printed. But just this morning the stories were found to be true? Or maybe it's just early signs of alzheimers...

 

[Informal Logic]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8701009/

"Roberts silent on Federalist Society"

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts declined Monday to say why he was listed in a leadership directory of the Federalist Society…

For me it is not so much that Roberts is clearly conservative (though as argued, a couple more nominations like him would make a very significant difference), but that information must be forthcoming, and his history of evasiveness is not a positive.

In regard to the ongoing media manipulation by the Bush regime, it has become so old and tiresome—at least for those of us who do follow the news regularly. Too bad Americans do not pay more attention.

 

[SOS2008]

TV preacher Pat Robertson is so eager to see the Supreme Court overturn decisions upholding civil liberties that he’s praying for God to create more vacancies on the high court.

Speaking on his nationally broadcast “700 Club” program Aug. 2, Robertson blasted the court for “egregious decisions that have taken us far away from the Constitution.” Among the rulings under fire from Robertson were Roe v. Wade, rulings on the “the so-called separation of church and state,” decisions protecting the civil rights of gay people and the ruling barring the death penalty for juveniles.

Can't Pat see that preaching from the pulpit about the judicial branch of our government is in itself contrary to separation of church and state?

 

[Skyhunter]

Let us clear up a few misunderstandings.

Roe -v- Wade is as much about a constitutional right to privacy, as it is about abortion. The corporatists want the rulings (sorry I don't remember which one Roe is based on) that determined there is an implied right to privacy in the constitution overturned. They care about profit, period. They are only using the abortion issue because it is more popular than arguing that corporations should have access to personal consumer information to better serve their interests.

I oppose Roberts because he is a corporate attorney who has consistently supported and advocated for corporate rights over personal rights. My personal belief is that corporations have no rights and should be allowed to exist only when they serve the common good. Currently they are just a way for individuals to to make money while avoiding personal responsiblity.

To all you christian corporatists out there, do you think come judgment day that God will make the distinction between you and your corporation?

 

[SOS2008]

I oppose Roberts because he is a corporate attorney who has consistently supported and advocated for corporate rights over personal rights.

Another good point, Skyhunter (and welcome to PF). In view of this recent decision:

Homes may be 'taken' for private projects
Justices: Local governments can give OK if it's for public good

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.

Can we imagine what the future may hold with the appointment of Roberts and probably a few more like him?

 

[BobG]

Another good point, Skyhunter (and welcome to PF). In view of this recent decision:
Can we imagine what the future may hold with the appointment of Roberts and probably a few more like him?

Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Stevens formed the majority opinion on the http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf case. O'Connor, Reihnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in the minority.

So you're saying that Robert's past as a corporate attorney will put him in the same camp as the first five? Or his conservative background will put him in the same camp as the second four?

Edit: The second four were in the 'smaller' majority, probably more commonly known as minority.

 

[SOS2008]

The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as handing “disproportionate influence and power” to the well-heeled — represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ (Oops, I had forgotten to provide this link...)

Meaning that we are losing a moderate, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- We have a president who clearly intends to replace her with a conservative, and one that probably would be in favor of this kind of legislation...which means even less hope for protection of individual rights ahead...

 

[BobG]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ (Oops, I had forgotten to provide this link...)

Meaning that we are losing a moderate, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- We have a president who clearly intends to replace her with a conservative, and one that probably would be in favor of this kind of legislation...which means even less hope for protection of individual rights ahead...

Thanks for providing the link. You did read the entire article that detailed which way each justice voted, didn't you?

 

[Skyhunter]

Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Stevens formed the majority opinion on the http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf case. O'Connor, Reihnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in the minority.

So you're saying that Robert's past as a corporate attorney will put him in the same camp as the first five? Or his conservative background will put him in the same camp as the second four?

I find myself most in agreement with Thomas who wrote the separate opinion citing it as unconstitutional.

Since this ruling strengthens the power of local government I would suspect that he would be in the same camp as O'Conner,Reinquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

I would define myself as a Green/Libertarian.

My problem with the left is they want a strong government.

My problem with the right is they want a weak government.

And vice versa.

 

[SOS2008]

Thanks for providing the link. You did read the entire article that detailed which way each justice voted, didn't you?

In response to Skyhunter, my post focused on:

Originally Posted by Skyhunter
I oppose Roberts because he is a corporate attorney who has consistently supported and advocated for corporate rights over personal rights.

I believe you are referring to this sentence in the article:

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Though these justices are conservatives, in this case they stood for individual rights. However, with Roberts background it seems questionable whether he would have joined them, and even more doubtful he would have played the swing vote role of O'Connor. What if there were, say four more Roberts weighing in on this decision? As for these conservative judges, how often are they the ones who usually favor individual rights?

And knowing how pro-business Bush is, I am suspicious of his nominees in such areas.

 

[Skyhunter]

So you're saying that Robert's past as a corporate attorney will put him in the same camp as the first five? Or his conservative background will put him in the same camp as the second four?

Edit: The second four were in the 'smaller' majority, probably more commonly known as minority.

Roberts' record may be opaque when it comes to Roe v Wade but on corporate issues it's as clear as daylight. When he was deputy solicitor general he ran the government's case when the Supreme Court issued what was probably the most devastating ruling on environmental issues in the last generation. This was the Lujan v National Wildlife Federation decision in 1990. It tightly restricted the doctrine of "standing" which gives environmentalists the right to challenge destructive practices on federal lands.

It would be hard for Roberts to argue that he was just doing his job as a government lawyer. Returning to private practice from the Solicitor General's office, he was swiftly picked as counsel by the National Mining Association, which had noted his victory in the Lujan decision. On behalf of the coal companies Roberts wrote a legal brief arguing that local citizens in West Virginia had no right to bring lawsuits challenging the most destructive form of mining ever devised, mountain-top removal. Later, going through confirmation to the Appeals Court, Roberts was asked what had been his most significant cases in private practice. In his response he proudly highlighted his work for the coal companies.

Here is the link for the whole article.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07202005.html

 

[kat]

hmm...just out of curiosity and relevant only because others are using them as a basis for arguement...
how many of you really consider newsmax as a reliable source of information...and uh...counterpunch, do you really consider that a reliable source?

 

[The Smoking Man]

hmm...just out of curiosity and relevant only because others are using them as a basis for arguement...
how many of you really consider newsmax as a reliable source of information...and uh...counterpunch, do you really consider that a reliable source?

I created a new thread 'Source vs. Content to explore this issue.

Hope you don't mind, Kat.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here are other sources, that one was more readable, and summarized my earlier point.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/

http://www.law.umich.edu/library/news/topics/roberts/oralarg/89-640.pdf

I could add more and I looked for a right-wing view point on the Lujan v National Wildlife Federation case, but it doesn't seem to be a portion of his record they are highlighting.

This is as closest thing to a right wing biased news source I could find on google.

http://www.foxreno.com/news/4744355/detail.html

 

[BobG]

Here's an interesting article (well, at least if you're a nerd). Pattern Analysis of the Reihnquist Supreme Court[/url].

How significant is O'Connor's replacement?

47% of the time, the USSC decision is unanimous (that's interesting in itself, considering the USSC gets to decide which cases they'll even consider).

4.5% of the time, the decision is 8-1, with Stevens the lone dissenter.

3% of the time, the decision is 7-2, with Scalia and Thomas the two dissenters.

In fact, Scalia and Thomas vote the same way over 93% of the time, while Ginsburg and Souter vote the same way over 90% of the time (the only exceptions have almost always been when Ginsburg joined one of Stevens's dissents - Stevens is the minority more often than any other judge on the USSC.)

Those five justices represent the two extremes of the USSC and are never the deciding factor in a close case. The USSC most resembles a court with 4.68 ideal judges whose ruling on a case can't be predicted ahead of time.

15.3% of the time, the decision is 5-4. Of those (72 times for the current court), O'Connor voted with the majority 63 times. The other critical judge is Kennedy who voted with the majority in 54 of the 72 5-4 votes.

However, that's a little deceiving. The court is really aligned about 4-3 with the liberal side (Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer) having a slight edge over the conservative side (Scalia, Thomas, Reihnquist). It only takes one (Kennedy or O'Connor) to side with the liberal side to swing the vote while both have to side with the conservative side to swing the vote.

With the current court, O'Connor and Kennedy are the two most important judges - with the future court (with an unknown Roberts excluded), Kennedy will overwhelmingly be the most important judge with Reihnquist the second most important (the fact that Reihnquist is the most likely 'conservative' judge, other than Kennedy or O'Connor, to side with the liberal wing should get liberals even more spun up, since he's the most likely 'next' replacement slot).

Of the 72 5-4 decisions, 18 (or 25%) of them were decided by O'Connor aligning herself with the liberal wing of the USSC. That means that if Roberts turns out to be a 'conservative' judge, it will have an effect on about 3.8% of the cases that go before the USSC.

Of course, the real issue for most people isn't how many issues a change of balance in the USSC will affect. Instead it's probably more about what one or two 'key' cases are affected.

 

[SOS2008]

BobG - Very interesting (oh no, does that make me a nerd?).

You hit the nail on the head that liberals are concerned about what judges are leaving the court. And as I stated earlier, they aren't so concerned about Roberts by himself (with exception of setting precedent) but that there may be as many as three more appointments like him added to the court. What might that do to the stats above?

 

[BobG]

BobG - Very interesting (oh no, does that make me a nerd?).

You hit the nail on the head that liberals are concerned about what judges are leaving the court. And as I stated earlier, they aren't so concerned about Roberts by himself (with exception of setting precedent) but that there may be as many as three more appointments like him added to the court. What might that do to the stats above?

Mmmm, they might be concerned about Roberts, depending on what they consider key issues.

I don't see much advantage to replacing O'Connor since most of the issues she flipped to the left on weren't very high priority for me. There's little chance of improvement and, if the Bush team has done their usual bang-up job in assessing things, a risk Roberts could wind up being as liberal as Stevens.

If abortion rights were the one key issue I was concerned about, I might be pretty leary of Roberts. With O'Connor, the court's opinion towards Roe v Wade was 5 in favor of protecting abortion, 3 believing it should be overturned, with Breyer's only position being that Roe v Wade is a settled issue (Breyer's one of the wild cards on the court, even if more predictable than Kennedy and O'Connor). With O'Connor leaving, it's 4-3 that can be counted before the issue ever comes up, with everyone waiting to see what Breyer and Roberts rule should the issue come up.

It really comes down to what special interests a person has as to whether they would be upset by the prospect of a most likely conservative Roberts on the court.

You have a big point about what happens if Stevens, Ginsburg, or Souter retire. The replacement would almost certainly be more conservative than any of those three. Someone like Stevens being replaced by someone like Scalia would be a dramatic change, for sure.

 

[Skyhunter]

Here are a few interesting tidbits about John Roberts.

A conflict of interest for John G. Roberts?
Imagine that you're a party to a lawsuit. Now imagine that, once the case is over and you've lost, you find out that the judge who ruled against you was interviewing for a job with your opponent at the same time he was presiding over your case.

Would you feel, just maybe, that the judge had a conflict of interest? And how would you feel knowing that the judge got the job he was seeking -- and that the job was a lifetime appointment as an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court?

Those are some of the questions raised by Jim VandeHei's report in this morning's Washington Post. On July 15, John Roberts joined two of his colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in holding that the Bush administration could use military tribunals to try detainees it is holding at Guantánamo Bay. What only Roberts and the White House knew the day the decision came down: At the very moment Roberts was considering the administration's appeal, he was also interviewing for a job on the Supreme Court.

Roberts and his colleagues heard the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on April 7. Pursuant to the usual practice in the D.C. Circuit, Roberts would have known he was assigned to the case weeks if not months earlier. Yet on April 1 -- with the Hamdan briefs undoubtedly in his chambers -- Roberts met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about a possible Supreme Court nomination. In May, with a decision in the Hamdan case still pending, Roberts went to the White House to interview with Dick Cheney, Andrew Card and Karl Rove, the Post says. And on July 15 -- the same day the Hamdan decision was released -- Roberts interviewed with the president himself.

Federal law states that a judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Might Roberts' impartiality be "reasonably questioned" here? It's hard to see how it couldn't be. A White House official tells the Post that it would be unwise and unworkable to prohibit any judge who wanted a promotion from hearing cases involving the federal government; such cases are so common that the federal courts would just about come to a standstill. But there's a significant difference in degree here. While the federal courts are full of cases involving the federal government -- low-level drug prosecutions, tax cases, disputes over the decisions of administrative agencies on everything from telephone charges to workplace rules -- most of those cases aren't of particularly keen interest to the president and his senior aides. The Hamdan case was. As the Post says, the question of the propriety of military tribunals sits "at the heart of Bush's anti-terrorism strategy." Would the president have been less enthusiastic about nominating Roberts if Roberts had ruled against the administration in Hamdan? More important, might one -- say, a detainee at Guantánamo -- reasonably think that Roberts was thinking he would hurt his Supreme Court prospects if he ruled against the president in Hamdan?

But he was only representing a client, right?
The confirmation of John G. Roberts is probably a done deal, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. George W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee seems to be skating through the Senate on the feeling that he's not Janice Rogers Brown-weird and the pretense that the pretty consistently conservative views he has expressed to date were merely the work product of a lawyer representing clients who just happened to be conservative themselves.

But as papers from Roberts' past continue to dribble out, the latter argument is getting a little harder to make. As the Chicago Tribune reports today, Roberts, while working as a young lawyer in the Reagan White House, was extremely critical of the notion that women should receive equal pay for work comparable in value to that done by men. He said that it was "difficult to exaggerate the perniciousness of the 'comparable worth' theory," and he said it would require "nothing less than the central planning of the economy by judges." When three female Republicans in Congress endorsed the idea, Roberts was incredulous. "I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept," he wrote.

The analysis came in a memo that Roberts wrote to then-White House Counsel Fred Fielding -- which is to say, not in a legal brief he had to file on behalf of a client. In another such memo, Roberts said he thought a Supreme Court decision that prohibited silent prayer in schools was "indefensible." In another, he said he thought it would be "entirely appropriate" to hold a memorial service to call attention "to the abortion tragedy." The memo came, as the Washington Post notes, at the end of a court battle over whether 16,500 aborted fetuses should be turned over to anti-abortion activists for burial. In yet another memo, Roberts said abortion rights in America were based on the "so-called 'right to privacy.'" That is the same "so-called right" that stands between married couples and a state legislature's desire to outlaw contraception.

As the Post observes, the memos, which were among the documents released Monday by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, show that Roberts has "staked out conservative positions on a broader array of issues than has previously been known." And there is, presumably, more of the same to come. Among the documents that weren't released Monday: memos Roberts wrote about presidential pardons and the tax exempt status for Bob Jones University, approximately 20 pages from a Roberts file on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other papers relating to affirmative action.

I wonder what is in the papers the White House is refusing to release?

 

[loseyourname]

Do you have a link for this? I got the impression that the Reagan library was releasing these papers, not the White House.

 

[Skyhunter]

You are correct. These memos are from the Reagan library.

Here is the article from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601561.html?sub=AR


This is the article covering the White House refusing to release documents from George H. Bush's administration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/26/supremecourt/main711851.shtml

 

[loseyourname]

So what is the difference between the documents he prepared during the Reagan administration and during the Bush adminstration? Did he serve in a different capacity during each? I don't understand why one set would be protected by privilege and the other wouldn't.

 

[Skyhunter]

So what is the difference between the documents he prepared during the Reagan administration and during the Bush adminstration? Did he serve in a different capacity during each? I don't understand why one set would be protected by privilege and the other wouldn't.

I don't know either and I have not had the time to do much digging yet.

I think that the WH is using attorney client privilege as the reason for holding back the G. H. Bush documents.

The one that concerns me is his referring to the "so called right to privacy". As I believe I stated earlier, Roe v Wade is about privacy, not abortion.

A conservative gentlemen engaged me in a conversation about religious freedom by telling me that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution. I quoted him the first amendment. He told me that the separation of church and state was from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, when Jefferson wasn't president. A week later he showed up with a copy of the constitution, a copy of the letter that Jefferson wrote to the Baptist association in 1802, and another document explaining what Jefferson meant.

I pointed out to him that;

1) Jefferson was President from 1801-1809.

2) The in the letter to the Baptist association he cited the first amendment and said it "creates a wall of separation between church and state.

3) Jefferson was the primary author of the constitution.

4) Jefferson was quite clear in what he wrote and that the explanation of what he meant was BS.

I agreed however that the phrase "separation between church and state" does not appear in the constitution. Taking my acquiescence as agreement to his entire argument, he then went on to tell me how the Supreme Court has been rewriting the constitution and we need to get constructionist like Roberts on the bench to reverse 200 years of activist judges changing our constitution.

He was so sincere he scared the hell out of me.

 

[McGyver]

Roberts Vulnerable on UltraConserve Bus Views

Though it appears Roberts' abortion views may be that which tips the scales to/for his approval to the Supreme Court. My sources indicate his biggest liability may be his untra-conservative views in regards to corporate business and employment.

 

[Informal Logic]

...he then went on to tell me how the Supreme Court has been rewriting the constitution and we need to get constructionist like Roberts on the bench to reverse 200 years of activist judges changing our constitution.

He was so sincere he scared the hell out of me.

This is what has been being preached by the right wing fundamentalists, and was repeated in the "Justice Sunday II" BS. We all should be scared about this. These people are drawn to this kind of stuff, and wouldn't know the facts if it bit them in the arse.