Posted on 07/19/2005 4:44:48 PM PDT by freedrudge
Edited on 07/19/2005 4:52:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says...
a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Roberts won the case -- Rust v. Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.
Sound good to me. Its Mushroom time in the senate.
Thats exactly what I thought also. They are just running on fumes-nothing left upstairs. What is a pink triangle?
Then Bush should "leak" Gonzales's name as possible next pick. They blamed him for that! They claimed it was him who advocated that torture! Would they really want to pi$$ him off if he's a possibility for the SC????
Where are the Freeper Bush-bashers right now? You know, the ones who swore that Bush would throw us under the bus on this pick?
I think that, if this report is correct, the President is owed some apologies right about now. Who is big enough to step up now and admit that he/she was wrong?
I knew it! The minute I read he'd been involved in the FL recount I knew the DUmmies conspiracy theories would skyrocket.
Bwahahaha! Gotta pop the popcorn...
Excerpt from a Lieberman interview 5 days ago (Roberts should not cause filibuster...aka talk-athon)
"
Lieberman offered reporters Wednesday three names he said could be considered without sparking a talk-athon. He would not say whether he brought them up to Rove.
He said federal appellate Judges Michael McConnell and John G. Roberts were "in the ballpark," and that "people tell me" appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is "very similar."
Lieberman emphasized that should they be nominated, they would be carefully scrutinized.
"
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-scotus0714.artjul14,0,4264662.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics
"Environmental Protection and Property Rights
"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.
"I sure hope the toad has a good lawyer."
One can hear the Sierra Club members passing out and dropping over on their redwood decks all over California and Oregon.
The sound is a familiar one. It is the same when you drop a real watermelon on the deck.
Isn't a definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time? The Dems keep running the same plays and wonder why they get stuffed each time.
You and me both, brudda, either one and I would have been tickled pink!
"Say hello to Chief Justice Scalia or Chief Justice Thomas!!!"
I don't claim to know either, but that's what I'm hoping for too.
Yup. Just to screw up the Senate for a while.
Yeah! That one's a classic!! We watched it , too.
I don't know much about him. I hope he's pro 2nd Amendment.
According to this blogger (see below) Scalia called Roberts "far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country" - and said that opinion was widely shared among justices!!! That suggests a quality of intellect that will be very influential on the court for years to come:
"For what it's worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country."
posted by Stuart Buck at 7:11 PM
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2005/07/roberts.html
I really hope the Dems force a big fight on this. Let's stick it to them!
"Because it's more manly for them to come forward and admit their error rather than to call them out personally."
What is there for anyone to apologize for, and who should these nebulous people apologize to?
It's not unreasonable to expect that Gonzalez might have been the nominee- after all, he was nominated to the AG post.
Bush has made some good appointments, and some bad ones. Good, Rumsfeld. Bad, Asa Hutchison.
Thank God!
"Judge Roberts, 50, has been on the appeals court since May 2003. Before that appointment, he was widely viewed as one of the leading lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court, winning more than two dozen cases. Although he is considered a reliable conservative, he has written little commentary, has not taken any public position on abortion rights and has yet to rule on any major cases from the bench.
As a result, some conservatives have worried that his profile is similar to Justice David H. Souter when he was named to the Court in 1990 by President Bush's father, after having served briefly on a federal appeals court.
The elder Mr. Bush's aides assured conservatives that he would be to their liking. Instead, he has become one of the court's relatively liberal voices, angering conservatives who say they are determined not to be misled again about a potential justice's leanings."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.