John G. Roberts nominated to supreme court! :clap: :clap: :clap:
Now lets hope he doesnt get "Borked" :cursin: :cursin: :cursin:
Now lets hope he doesnt get "Borked" :cursin: :cursin: :cursin:
Bush does something right finally!!!
- Thread starter dr. freeze
- Start date
Looks to good and young for the job. But so nice to see a young guy instead of old. Sounds smart as hell did Harvard in 3 years.
Just saw a few things about him.
In 1991 he opined that Roe V. Wade should be overturned.
In his defense, a few years later he basically said that it shouldn't be overturned.
Not sure if that makes him a flip-flopper like Kerry, but I guess it doesn't make him a hard-core Freeze.
He's young, inexperienced as a judge(20 months) and has very few opinions on hot topic issues. Unless they have something on him(druggie..etal), it should be a reasonably clean confirmation, but we'll see.
There's nothing that the dems can really latch on to, opinion-wise. But I admit that the fact Freeze is all giddy makes me nervous.
In 1991 he opined that Roe V. Wade should be overturned.
In his defense, a few years later he basically said that it shouldn't be overturned.
Not sure if that makes him a flip-flopper like Kerry, but I guess it doesn't make him a hard-core Freeze.
He's young, inexperienced as a judge(20 months) and has very few opinions on hot topic issues. Unless they have something on him(druggie..etal), it should be a reasonably clean confirmation, but we'll see.
There's nothing that the dems can really latch on to, opinion-wise. But I admit that the fact Freeze is all giddy makes me nervous.
tell us how you think Roe v Wade represents a good piece of Constitutional Law
tell us how killing a baby protects life and liberty exactly
not sure why you and others seem to make this such a crusade as if you get a little thrill or something out of murdering the most innocent among us
sick....very sick
tell us how killing a baby protects life and liberty exactly
not sure why you and others seem to make this such a crusade as if you get a little thrill or something out of murdering the most innocent among us
sick....very sick
Last edited:
dr. freeze said:
This isn't a 'crusade' of mine or anybody that I know. You, I , and everybody else have been around the block on this.
It all comes down to where you consider 'life' to begin. Some think that it's the instant that the winger gets one past the goal. Some don't.
It's always going to be subjective.
Roe V. Wade doesn't 'represent a good piece of constitutional law.' Neither would a federal ban, or even leaving it up to the states.
It's not addressed in the constitution, of course, but neither is mecidinal marijuana.
Here's a news flash, freeze. Abortions will never be stemmed by any laws. And if you want 19 yr olds crossing state lines in desperation, or getting one in some back alley, then you can have that on your conscience.
Meanwhile, you and your ilk can continue to rail against those who advocate contraception in schools and other realistic methods to control unwanted pregnancies.
Guys like Freeze make no sense they are against a woman's right to have an abortion but at the same time they are against government assistance. I wonder where they think the funds come from to support the vast majority of children that are results of unwanted pregnancies? Do you think Freeze would be willing to adopt one of these children that are the result of unwanted pregnancy or even be a big brother to them? I highly doubt it, in his mind they are someone else's problem! I bet the poster child for anti abortions is just as giddy as Freeze, as Eric Rudolph is more than likely jumping up and down, but too bad Rudolph was not aborted when his mother had the opportunity as many lives would have been spared.
kosar said:
if there is any doubt as to when life begins, why on earth would one error on the side of murder as opposed to taking away "an easy way out" after refusing to take responsibility many a time along the way? (an easy way out in some people's minds...i do not necessarily think that it is as the pro-death advocates to not realize the emotional, psychological consequences this horrific procedure may have on a woman years down the road when/if she finds out what she did to a life...truly a noncompassionate viewpoint)
another real intelligent, reasonable post by MC lmao
Last edited:
Here some data on his Roe vs Wade stance which I think Matt had pegged correctly--I believe he'll go though without much fighting--so far Durbin and Kennedy only 2 against (who would have thought)and they don't count.
Abortion Stance Key to Confirmation
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
By Jane Roh
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. (search), who has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, may get the chance to hear even more cases from the other side of the bench.
In an announcement Tuesday night, President Bush picked Roberts to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search). He is seen as a solid conservative who has done little to give Democrats much cause for complaint.
But the jurist is unlikely to get off without considerable scrutiny, foremost of which will focus on Roberts' stand on Roe v. Wade (search) ? the 1973 case that effectively legalized abortion in the U.S. ? a position that he has left largely up in the air publicly.
The landmark decision has had conservatives eagerly awaiting Bush's chance to shake up the high court, which has remained static for nearly 11 years. Meanwhile, Democrats consider the decision to give women access to abortions as perhaps the most vital court ruling to be preserved in a newly configured court.
Roberts, 50, previously served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (search); he was confirmed for the position in May 2003. Before that he served President Reagan as associate counsel from 1982-86 and President George H.W. Bush as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-93. He has argued before the Supreme Court ? both in private practice and on behalf of the United States ? on cases ranging from environmental law to the First Amendment and antitrust cases.
Unlike Justice Antonin Scalia, who was also nominated off the D.C. Appeals Court, Roberts spent no time in academia following his graduation from Harvard Law School in 1979. The lack of a substantial paper record of Roberts' judicial philosophy will no doubt frustrate those seeking predictive clues to what kind of justice he will be.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the onus is on Roberts, not the Senate, to prove his mettle.
"It is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly and fully in the coming months," Schumer told reporters following Bush's announcement Tuesday night. "His views will affect a generation of Americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views."
Schumer was one of three Democrats who voted against Roberts' appointment to the Appeals Court because, he said, the then-lawyer refused to reveal which Supreme Court decisions he opposed, including the monumental abortion case.
In a brief filed in 1991on behalf of the first Bush administration, Roberts wrote: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
But during his confirmation hearings in 2003, Roberts insisted that the brief contained the administration's opinion, not necessarily his own.
"The statement in the brief was my position as an advocate for a client," he said.
Roberts also insisted he would respect Supreme Court precedent.
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... it's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," Roberts said in response to a question from Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
That so little is known about Roberts means that it may well be after his first day on the bench before any camp can declare his confirmation a victory. Special interest groups had already begun expressing their opinions by time the president's announcement was finished.
"The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety. It is particularly troubling that Roberts went on the record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned when he served as a lawyer for the government," said Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Only a nominee committed to protecting women's health and safety should be confirmed by the Senate."
"Everything we know about Judge Roberts tells us that he fulfills the president's promise to nominate a judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "That's why the president nominated him to the D.C. Circuit. He clerked for (Justice William H.) Rehnquist, which says a lot."
Meanwhile, Republican presidents in the past couple decades have been hurt by unknowns appointed to the bench. Justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy have proved to be more liberal-leaning than expected, much to the disappointment of anti-abortion conservatives.
Roberts was born Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y. Raised in Indiana, Roberts worked summers in a steel mill to help pay his way through Harvard, where he graduated summa cum laude in 1976. After graduating from the law school magna cum laude, Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the 2nd Court of Appeals.
In 1980, he served as a clerk for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist. Twenty-three years later, the chief justice swore his former clerk into the D.C. Appeals Court. The confirmation to that court was among the least contentious of the Senate since Bush's tenure began.
Roberts, a practicing Catholic, lives with his lawyer wife and their two children in Bethesda, Md.
Abortion Stance Key to Confirmation
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
By Jane Roh
Judge John G. Roberts Jr. (search), who has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, may get the chance to hear even more cases from the other side of the bench.
In an announcement Tuesday night, President Bush picked Roberts to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search). He is seen as a solid conservative who has done little to give Democrats much cause for complaint.
But the jurist is unlikely to get off without considerable scrutiny, foremost of which will focus on Roberts' stand on Roe v. Wade (search) ? the 1973 case that effectively legalized abortion in the U.S. ? a position that he has left largely up in the air publicly.
The landmark decision has had conservatives eagerly awaiting Bush's chance to shake up the high court, which has remained static for nearly 11 years. Meanwhile, Democrats consider the decision to give women access to abortions as perhaps the most vital court ruling to be preserved in a newly configured court.
Roberts, 50, previously served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (search); he was confirmed for the position in May 2003. Before that he served President Reagan as associate counsel from 1982-86 and President George H.W. Bush as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-93. He has argued before the Supreme Court ? both in private practice and on behalf of the United States ? on cases ranging from environmental law to the First Amendment and antitrust cases.
Unlike Justice Antonin Scalia, who was also nominated off the D.C. Appeals Court, Roberts spent no time in academia following his graduation from Harvard Law School in 1979. The lack of a substantial paper record of Roberts' judicial philosophy will no doubt frustrate those seeking predictive clues to what kind of justice he will be.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the onus is on Roberts, not the Senate, to prove his mettle.
"It is vital that Judge Roberts answer a wide range of questions openly, honestly and fully in the coming months," Schumer told reporters following Bush's announcement Tuesday night. "His views will affect a generation of Americans and it is his obligation during the nomination process to let the American people know those views."
Schumer was one of three Democrats who voted against Roberts' appointment to the Appeals Court because, he said, the then-lawyer refused to reveal which Supreme Court decisions he opposed, including the monumental abortion case.
In a brief filed in 1991on behalf of the first Bush administration, Roberts wrote: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
But during his confirmation hearings in 2003, Roberts insisted that the brief contained the administration's opinion, not necessarily his own.
"The statement in the brief was my position as an advocate for a client," he said.
Roberts also insisted he would respect Supreme Court precedent.
"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... it's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," Roberts said in response to a question from Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
That so little is known about Roberts means that it may well be after his first day on the bench before any camp can declare his confirmation a victory. Special interest groups had already begun expressing their opinions by time the president's announcement was finished.
"The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety. It is particularly troubling that Roberts went on the record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned when he served as a lawyer for the government," said Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Only a nominee committed to protecting women's health and safety should be confirmed by the Senate."
"Everything we know about Judge Roberts tells us that he fulfills the president's promise to nominate a judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. "That's why the president nominated him to the D.C. Circuit. He clerked for (Justice William H.) Rehnquist, which says a lot."
Meanwhile, Republican presidents in the past couple decades have been hurt by unknowns appointed to the bench. Justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy have proved to be more liberal-leaning than expected, much to the disappointment of anti-abortion conservatives.
Roberts was born Jan. 27, 1955, in Buffalo, N.Y. Raised in Indiana, Roberts worked summers in a steel mill to help pay his way through Harvard, where he graduated summa cum laude in 1976. After graduating from the law school magna cum laude, Roberts clerked for Judge Henry Friendly on the 2nd Court of Appeals.
In 1980, he served as a clerk for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist. Twenty-three years later, the chief justice swore his former clerk into the D.C. Appeals Court. The confirmation to that court was among the least contentious of the Senate since Bush's tenure began.
Roberts, a practicing Catholic, lives with his lawyer wife and their two children in Bethesda, Md.
dogs` point that roberts` stance on roe in "91" was as an advocate in a case is a valid one...
anybody knows(ask eddie) that if you pay a lawyer,he`d argue that up is down and that michael jackson is white.....
??????.... :mj03: :wtf:... uhhh,disregard that last analogy..
anybody knows(ask eddie) that if you pay a lawyer,he`d argue that up is down and that michael jackson is white.....
??????.... :mj03: :wtf:... uhhh,disregard that last analogy..
Last edited:
How does forcing women to seek illegal unsanitary abortions in back-alleys with coat hangers protect life?
And its a sure bet that those getting the most illegal abortions will be the children of the Christian fundamentalists. Just like the Christians are currently getting divorced at a higher rate.
Do as I say, not as I do I guess applies.
And its a sure bet that those getting the most illegal abortions will be the children of the Christian fundamentalists. Just like the Christians are currently getting divorced at a higher rate.
Do as I say, not as I do I guess applies.
ocelot said:
Alas, the liberal "emotional" fight-back method. Been 5 or 6 replies without somebody using the old tactic.
I believe that this Roberts guy opined same as Ginsburg in that the decision on Roe v. Wade was badly written and utilized the "right to privacy" precept as opposed to a women's right to choose.
I'm amazed at how abortion stil plays with you guy's little minds (libs, of course). It's like your last great stand. Get over it. It should not be a Constitutional issue, it's a legislative issue.
Original Intent applied to today's world shoud be much more of an issue given the current state of affairs.
Nosigar,
Surely you're bright enough to recognize that abortion is not just some cause taken up by only liberals. It certainly isn't some 'last stand', but it seems to me that the liberals just want the status quo maintained while it's the conservatives who want it overturned. Which side requires more activism to achieve their goal?
Maybe it's not a constitutional issue. So now what? Should the conservatives just drop it, or are you suggesting that it should be overturned?
Abortion rights are certainly way down on the list of things that affect me personally, but I see little utility in reversing Roe v. Wade.
Haven't you ever seen Dirty Dancing?
Nobody puts baby in a corner.
Surely you're bright enough to recognize that abortion is not just some cause taken up by only liberals. It certainly isn't some 'last stand', but it seems to me that the liberals just want the status quo maintained while it's the conservatives who want it overturned. Which side requires more activism to achieve their goal?
Maybe it's not a constitutional issue. So now what? Should the conservatives just drop it, or are you suggesting that it should be overturned?
Abortion rights are certainly way down on the list of things that affect me personally, but I see little utility in reversing Roe v. Wade.
Haven't you ever seen Dirty Dancing?
Nobody puts baby in a corner.
- Feb 12, 2000
- 10,652
- 39
- 48
- 49
I don't know where thsi journalist stands politically, but I think this statement is accurate.
kosar--the left, even though they have the constitution in their favor on this issue, seem to be the louder of the two sides most of the time on abortion. This is an issue that sparks great emotion in many people. Maybe it's just that people on the left are more vocal (protests, sit-ins, general stuff that the news seems to like to show) than the right.
Would you agree that if any nominee had a great track record of being completely fair and balanced throughout their career, but leaned against the Roe v Wade decision, the Democrats would immediately try to ban him? I, personally, feel that they would.
I KNOW that the dumbass Ted Kennedy would, but I think he would be against anyone just so his name can be in the papers.
Sure, Dawg.
There's no doubt that if a nominee was seen as somebody who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade that the liberals would make it hell, if not impossible, to get him confirmed.
And of course it's important to a large % of the population. It's around 65 or 70 percent of the population favors the status quo.
My point was that it is disingenious to suggest that this is a 'liberals only' issue.
There's no doubt that if a nominee was seen as somebody who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade that the liberals would make it hell, if not impossible, to get him confirmed.
And of course it's important to a large % of the population. It's around 65 or 70 percent of the population favors the status quo.
My point was that it is disingenious to suggest that this is a 'liberals only' issue.
dawgball said:
Sure, they're more 'vocal' through sit-ins and rallys. The right has cornered the market on bombs and shotguns.
I wonder how many people consider Eric Rudolph a hero?
Bernie:
I see no reason to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if supporters of it want it to be truly a matter of "real law" they would pursue it in the legislative venue also. Doesn't that give it more validity?
At the same time, as you well know, activism stops nowhere. The continuation of the "Roe" could progress to include many other forms such as late term abortions, etc., eventually a Right to Life decided by judges case could come up and the only precedent would be "Roe". Now, all this is based on a Right to Privacy issue.
I wouldn't worry if conservative or Constitutionalist judges were running the SC, but with the like of the liberals up there appeasing the "Liberal Intellectual Elite", one deifinitely has to CYA. A stretch? Perhaps, but look at the US only 50 years ago compared to today...
I see no reason to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if supporters of it want it to be truly a matter of "real law" they would pursue it in the legislative venue also. Doesn't that give it more validity?
At the same time, as you well know, activism stops nowhere. The continuation of the "Roe" could progress to include many other forms such as late term abortions, etc., eventually a Right to Life decided by judges case could come up and the only precedent would be "Roe". Now, all this is based on a Right to Privacy issue.
I wouldn't worry if conservative or Constitutionalist judges were running the SC, but with the like of the liberals up there appeasing the "Liberal Intellectual Elite", one deifinitely has to CYA. A stretch? Perhaps, but look at the US only 50 years ago compared to today...
nosigar,
You tell liberals to "get over it" regarding abortion issue. Now THAT is rich! So-called "liberals" got over it long ago...its you boys that can't get over it and continue to fight this battle. The rest of the industrialized Western World has advanced beyond it as well. But the American Taliban continues to try and micro-manage women's lives and decisions for them.
Incidentally - Once again, according to the questionairre posted here not long ago I rated 55% liberal / 45% conservative - which to you is of course "liberal".
You tell liberals to "get over it" regarding abortion issue. Now THAT is rich! So-called "liberals" got over it long ago...its you boys that can't get over it and continue to fight this battle. The rest of the industrialized Western World has advanced beyond it as well. But the American Taliban continues to try and micro-manage women's lives and decisions for them.
Incidentally - Once again, according to the questionairre posted here not long ago I rated 55% liberal / 45% conservative - which to you is of course "liberal".
