Write Review
2,078,299 Total Reviews 3,772 New Reviews
9,207 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Bush Chooses Roberts as Supreme Nominee:For once, he coulda done alot worse.
DoctorGonzo 106 Reviews 4350 reads
posted

While I obviously would have preferred Bush nominate a left leaning progressive moderate to the Supreme Court, (did that make you squirm , Ed2k?:) ) I must admit, at first glance it seems like Bush could have done much worse.
While I'm somewhat uncomfortable with Roberts choice of subject matter in trying cases over the years, his apprenticeship to Rehnquist and his strong anti-abortion stance, his record as jurist is clean. Additionally, during his confirmation hearings in 2003, he is quoted as saying "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." That sounds pretty honorable.

I'm surprised it wasn't a woman though. Especially after Laura's comments. We'll see what happens as the upcoming 3 ring circus unfolds. Let the Games Begin!

Related Link: Bush Nominates Roberts for Supreme Court

Jeremy Bender2566 reads

"Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas. "

Related Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA2710 reads

If you want to selectively misrepresent an article and attempt to slam someone, you did ok. But to continue the article from where you "conveniently" left off, here's some more:
"But this take on Roberts puts some of his biggest boosters in a quandary. They praise Roberts as a brilliant, fair-minded lawyer with a perfect judicial temperament. But can that image as an open-minded jurist co-exist with also being viewed as a predictable conservative?

Florida personal injury lawyer Dean Colson of Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, who has known Roberts since they clerked for Rehnquist together in 1980, side-steps the question.

Colson calls Roberts "the smartest lawyer in America," someone who will "approach the cases with an intellectual viewpoint. I don't view him as having an agenda to promote."

But does that mean conservatives can't count on Roberts? "I don't know the answer as to how he would vote on specific issues," says Colson. "I would never ask him, and I hope he never tells anybody what he would do."

Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., a longtime Roberts fan and lifelong Democrat who worked with him for years at Hogan, says that if anyone can be both judicious and predictable, Roberts can.

"He respects the Court greatly, and would not ignore precedent," says Prettyman. "But if there's a loophole or a distinguishing factor, he'd find it."

Roberts himself declined to comment for this story, but during his January 2003 Senate confirmation hearing, he made it clear that he prefers impartiality over predictability. For example, he criticized the press for identifying judges according to whether they were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents.

"That gives so little credit to the work that they put into the case," he said. "They work very hard, and all of a sudden the report is, well, they just decided that way because of politics. That is a disservice to them."

Related Link: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

ReplyQuoteReport
stamina4hours2912 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA3073 reads

He hasn't undergone hearings yet, and already he's being "judged" and being portrayed in a poor light.

And the information is being manipulated or misrepresented.

ReplyQuoteReport
stamina4hours3523 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Jeremy Bender2723 reads

because if you did you would know that it is important to frame the issues quickly and first. That is why the Republicans are out there spinning that he was a small town boy who worked in the steel mills. They want the rubes to think he is one of them. They kind of gloss over the fact that he was a very rich small town boy who's father was a very rich steel company executive. Plus you have people like Dobson out there promoting him as God's gift who will overturn R v W, round up the gays and make prayer mandatory at all school events.

You can't have it both ways. The religious whackos are having a big "O" over this nomination so it is important to point out that he is not a moderate conservative. Remember, Bush ran as a moderate and he was anything but. My guess is that he is another stealth wingnut just like Chimpy.

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA3025 reads

You want toask hime to explain the the perceived inconsistancies about R v W, that's fine, but coming out with only half the story is a pure bullshit attack.

All it does is cause the other side to adopt similar strategies. And in the end, it's all a load of crap because confirmation to the court is not an election, the "rubes" don't have the final say...(Actually, my contempt for congress as a whole would lead me to agree that the term "rube" is probably appropriate).

This public smear is designed to get the votin' folk all riled up about nothing. And it's kinda funny when you really think about it. There was an earlier thread about how this has pushed the Rove/CIA story off the front pages. The Dem's and anti-bush crowd would be better served calling off the attack dogs and minimizing any comments and stories. That would force attention back to Rove.

ReplyQuoteReport
Jeremy Bender3002 reads

and Schumer said this during his prior nomination, is that he would not answer any of these questions. The reason he was nominated is because he has a short record and not much in writing. Republican senators are already laying out their argument that no relevant questions can be asked during the hearings.

The fact is that if Bush nominated him, and if he refuses to answer questions on where he stands on important issues then I am going to assume the worst--that they are hiding something.

Now all that being said, honestly I don't think that there has been all that much "smearing" of him--certainly not in the national press. I mean no one has called him a murderer like they did Clinton on Fox back in the day. As of now the assumption is that there will not even be a filibuster.

A few sharp words on a sex board are not going to turn anyone on or off. All you have to do on this board is post a picture of some hooters and everyone calms down.

ReplyQuoteReport
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich3866 reads

Some of John Roberts' stands on issues that come before the Supreme Court:
================================================================

ABORTION: As a lawyer in the administration of President Bush's father, he helped write a Supreme Court brief that said, "We continue to believe that Roe (v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

RELIGION: Roberts unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to rule that public schools could sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. "We do not believe ... that graduation ceremonies pose a risk of coercion," said the brief Roberts helped to write on behalf of the first Bush administration.

ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads.

CRIMINAL MATTERS: His votes on the bench have been mixed. He ruled in favor of a man who challenged his sentence for fraud, then said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a train station in Washington.

POLICE SEARCHES: Joined an appeals court ruling in 2004 that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are looking for evidence of a crime.

MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Roberts was part of a unanimous decision last week that allowed the Pentagon to proceed with plans to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't call him honorable just yet Doc,

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA2852 reads

If you intend to post such information, you really should provide a source for others to refer to.

Otherwise, it's all like your handle-baloney

ReplyQuoteReport
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich3089 reads

link was apart of DocG's post of the "MyWay" site page
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050720/D8BES55O2.html and was a link at the bottom that listed what I posted ... but looks as if the direct link is gone now ..... you're smart enough to find out about him ... tell me those things are untrue and I'll gladly remove them ... but I can provide with the below link to similar data on him ...


-- Modified on 7/21/2005 12:03:21 AM

Related Link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA2317 reads

Grow some cojones and quit using an alias. Tell everyone who you really are.

From your referenced site:

"Some of John Roberts' stands on issues that come before the Supreme Court:
================================================================

ABORTION: As a lawyer in the administration of President Bush's father, he helped write a Supreme Court brief that said, "We continue to believe that Roe (v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

As reported:
In his 2003 confirmation hearings to the D.C. Court of Appeals in, Roberts claimed repeatedly that he was doing his job representing the administration and not voicing his personal views. Roberts demurred to senators that "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," and "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."



RELIGION: Roberts unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to rule that public schools could sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. "We do not believe ... that graduation ceremonies pose a risk of coercion," said the brief Roberts helped to write on behalf of the first Bush administration.

As reported:
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)


ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads.

As reported:
Roberts voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)



CRIMINAL MATTERS: His votes on the bench have been mixed. He ruled in favor of a man who challenged his sentence for fraud, then said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a train station in Washington.



POLICE SEARCHES: Joined an appeals court ruling in 2004 that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are looking for evidence of a crime.

As reported:
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)


MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Roberts was part of a unanimous decision last week that allowed the Pentagon to proceed with plans to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. "

I called you on your post because you acted like former prominent nutcase posters who posted "fact" without providing a link to substantiate their posts.

I realize that like minded anti-admin types will accept what you say at face value, and you don't really care what others might think, but if you want to "discuss" and not just make baseless accucations you must validate your information.

But then again, distortion of fact seems to be the norm nowadays.

ReplyQuoteReport
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich3114 reads

I didn't link it because it was at the bottom of Doc's posted link yesterday ..... get over it and yourself ..... also many people know who I am, this Alias handle is in referance to the title of an atriclle from a few years back that called anyone better than GW ... even a "Baloney Sandwich", and I've stuck with it ,,,,,,,, beside's what difference does my using this alias have compared to you using yours ? I don't assume JBIRDCA is your real name is it ? so you're using an alias too, and just like that's the only alias you use to post here {right ?}, likewise this is the only alias I use to post on the political boards, good enough for you ?


signed,
your arrogant, aliased hate mongering liberal (and Hockey Fan)

- Psssssssstt, that's a clue J Bird ;-)

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA2654 reads

I don't post here under an alias, I've only made one alias post on TER ever.

As for the rest of your tripe, I'll quote you "get over it and yourself "

ReplyQuoteReport
AllHailTheBaloneySandwich3132 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
NeedleDicktheBugFucker2651 reads

IT'S NOT THE SAME

soory, wrong caps

ReplyQuoteReport
The Moose4358 reads

Maybe he has more temperance & might be more respectful to lawyers than Scalia - (whose known to mock lawyers arguing cases before him)....But Roberts' views clearly resemble those of the Dobson's & Robertson's of this world:

"Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees".

"Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act."

"Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case"

This was Bush's one chance to really be a "uniter not divider" & he could have seleceted a more moderate justice (someone whose views resemble those of MOST Americans).....Instead, he appeases the SMALL minority of the republicans, the religious right......

Only about 1,200 days left until the Bush nightmare finally ends 1/20/09....

Sigh.........




ReplyQuoteReport
DoctorGonzo3061 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA3086 reads

"Only about 1,200 days left until the Bush nightmare finally ends 1/20/09"

Where did your information come from?

Is this some writers opinion, or is it a distortion of fact?

ReplyQuoteReport
DoctorGonzo2370 reads

But then again, nothing less than Hitler in the White House would satisfy this Nazi-loving cunt.

ReplyQuoteReport
james862682 reads

since they are sooooo representative of the Far Left.  Keep it up, and we'll keep winning elections!

ReplyQuoteReport
zinaval2517 reads


... conservatives will get to govern the US into the worst decline in its history.  The writing's on the wall now.  Economically and politically, the near future is going to be humiliating for the US.  

In a decade, James, you're going wish Kerry had won, not because you'll admit it would have saved the US from its troubles, but because it would have saved the conservatives from the humiliation.  I know you're going to somehow blame liberals anyway.  You and other conservatives will never take responsibility for a defective, archaic morality and crippling ideology, but at least you'd have to twist your mind and your guts painfully to blame us then.  

I won't leave and give up just because of the politics, unless I feel threatened, but I might leave anyway because of the economy, which is going to suck.  

First stop will be Canada.  Where from there?  Probably Hong Kong.  I'm ready for globalized freedom.  

ReplyQuoteReport
DoctorGonzo2662 reads

She's a Nazi loving cunt, and any Nazi lover, is my enemy whether they wear a Swastika, a Keffiyeh, or drape themselves in the American flag.

And if you want any further civility from me, get out from behind your pseudo-alias you right wing shill.

ReplyQuoteReport
The Moose2973 reads

Nov. 2008 is presidental election......And Bush will leave the White House on January 20, 2009----Inauguration day for the new president!......

BTW, I'm not far left......Hell, I'm probably a moderate by most counts, maybe leaning slightly left, but not far left......

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA3113 reads

Where did they come from.

I understood your expressed displeasure with Bush.

ReplyQuoteReport
The Moose2401 reads

Everything you always wanted to know about John Roberts, but were afraid to ask......

Related Link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA2364 reads

"Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees".

From your site: For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

I especially like the word "impose"....SO I guess the First Ammendment doesn't apply to high school graduation programs.



"Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act."

From your site again: played a significant role in supporting the Reagan Administration’s “race-neutral” approach to combating discrimination. With regard to remedies for segregated public schools and employment discrimination, Roberts advised the Attorney General about the Justice Department’s disagreement with a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report, which had asserted that mandatory busing and “the fullest use of…affirmative action” were necessary. Roberts explained the Department’s position that, “the objective of a proper desegregation remedy” was simply “the end to official discrimination on the basis of race,” a position that effectively eliminated much of the government’s traditional role in working to eradicate the effects of prior discrimination.

I guess that "forced desegrgation" is better than allowing people to achieve on their merits. I hope you aren't a SWM trying to get into a prestigious education institution...then again, pretty soon you'll be classified as a minority-do ya think the government will start handing out benefits when that happens?


"Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case"

This one is my favorite, I really jope the lefties pin all their hatred on THIS farce....

Once again from your website: You guys only seem to get a part of it. Overturning Roe v. Wade was such a primary focus of the Reagan Administration's Justice Department while Roberts was in the administration, that during an oral argument by the nominee to the Supreme Court a Justice asked, "Mr. Roberts, in this case, are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?" His reply was, "No your honor, the issue doesn't even come up." To this the justice replied, "Well that hasn't prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases."

Please note that he adopted this position while he was working FOR the Reagan admin (in other words, doing his job).

Why did you neglect this little tidbit?

In his 2003 confirmation hearings to the D.C. Court of Appeals in, Roberts claimed repeatedly that he was doing his job representing the administration and not voicing his personal views. Roberts demurred to senators that "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," and "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

And where's everyonne's outrage at theat meathead Schumer anyways? In a recent comment about Roberts, Schumer said that as a Supreme Court Justice Roberts would be in a position ot "make laws"....WTF......I would have thought a US Senator would realize that Congress "makes law", the courst determine the constitutionality of law.....oh yeah, us conservatives keep worrying about court activism...maybe Schumer was right after all.

ReplyQuoteReport
DoctorGonzo3158 reads

Yes, Jbird, apparently so. Otherwise, all the extremist right wingers whouldn't have been calling for the heads of all the REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE judges who ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo, and against the anguished, but ultimately self-serving Schindlers (not to mention the Bush boys and the diagnosis-by-video doctor, Bill Frist)
"We must get rid of these activist judges", was a very commonly quoted missive at the time.

Yes, Jbird, wih all due respect, the conservative right wing movement DOES scurry about like a chicken with no head when it comes to judicial activism. When it suits their purpose.
You've been spoiled by the GOP Spin doctors, dude. There's a very big difference between classic conservatism, and the current mutated form of conservatism, which is an incorporation of Christian fundamentalist ideology into mainstream Fascism, with a touch of "anti-Clintonian" folderol thrown in for flavor.


ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA3389 reads

"You've been spoiled by the GOP Spin doctors, dude"

I'd say you're as guilty of spin doctoring as the rest, just with a 90 degree leftist bent.

And as bad as james accusations of anti-Americanism were, you're no better with your Nazi and Fascist accusations & comments.

Here's what it comes down to, you're hell bent on doing anything you can to undermine this admin, because you don't agree with their positions-as are most of the strident liberals.

In a sense, when it comes to this admin, you and others of your perspective are no better than the extreme right that you despise so thoroughly.

ReplyQuoteReport
Dog Catcher2667 reads

You don't just hate America, but you hate women too.

ReplyQuoteReport
JBIRDCA2705 reads

What kind's of halucinagenics have you been consuming?

Better talk to Doc. Gonzo, sounds like you're on the wrong medication.

ReplyQuoteReport
Rudy503250 reads

He wouldn't be my choice for the court, but my presidential candidate didn't win.  Roberts is qualified, so Bush should be able to have him.  

BTW, Roberts comments on Roe were for his appointment to the Circuit where he was bound to follow Supreme Court precedence.  He won't be bound to Roe once on the Supreme Court.  They should follow stare decicis, but they do from time to time overturn previous decisions.

ReplyQuoteReport
james863023 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
Snowman392784 reads

GWB won the election, a benefit of that is picking nominess to the court who you believe will reflect your ideology.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!