Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Supreme Court nominee: John G. Roberts Jr.

  1. Jul 19, 2005 #1
    Okay, I've waited 4 minutes and no one else started a thread on this, so I'll start one.

    Yahoo! story

    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:
    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 )
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 19, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  4. Jul 19, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is all that matters in this country what a woman gets to do after she drops her pants?
  5. Jul 19, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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


    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...

    Sad but true. Seems everyone is obsessed with other people's private lives.
  6. Jul 19, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Its not private lives... its sex... everyone seems to be obsessed with sex.
  7. Jul 19, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think it's illegal to have sex in public...
  8. Jul 20, 2005 #7
    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.
  9. Jul 20, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Cept in san francisco probably :P
  10. Jul 20, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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. Ive 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 im not attacking or supporting Roe v wade... but im 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 dont 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
  11. Jul 20, 2005 #10
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2005
  12. Jul 20, 2005 #11
    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.)
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2005
  13. Jul 20, 2005 #12

    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.

    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.
  14. Jul 20, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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, im 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.
  15. Jul 20, 2005 #14
    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.
  16. Jul 20, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 dont 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 truely 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 shouldnt be telling people not to have abortions because society shouldnt be placing a value on the choice doesnt 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 cant 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 dont 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.
  17. Jul 20, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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:


    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:
    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”


    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:

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2005
  18. Jul 20, 2005 #17
    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?

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

    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."

    'ts OK. i deleted half of it. :smile: :smile: 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.
  19. Jul 20, 2005 #18
    Here are more stats on what "the people want."



    So let Bush and the GOP spew their spin...Americans may just find it is getting old.
  20. Jul 22, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    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?


    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...
  21. Jul 22, 2005 #20
    For the few that do pay attention...


    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?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Supreme Court nominee: John G. Roberts Jr.
  1. Supreme Court Facts (Replies: 2)