Posted on 07/19/2005 5:06:14 PM PDT by Mo1
Edited on 07/19/2005 5:10:19 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
On the way in, every conservative talk show was pretty much in high spirits with the choice, though few really know the man, but it doesn’t take very long to like him.
I like him already. A handsome man, Roberts, an intelligent man.
And a young man. I heard he was only 50 and a nominee to the court, a court of older men and women, and this choice may be a sitting judge on the court until 2030 AD. By God, think about it.
Well, I didn’t expect it. But it looks like the conservatives got what they wanted.
And it’s very good news. Good news for conservatives like me.
The abortion question isn’t the most important to me, because for me it is the war on terror, protecting our borders, stopping the illegal alien invasion, private property rights, and cutting off funding to PBS et all, and stopping gay marriage and licenses for illegal aliens from Mexico. Most of these are political issues, but the court can make a huge difference in it’s own way.
In truth, I don’t know where Roberts stands on all of these issues, but talk show host Laura Ingraham is giving the nod, so that’s a good endorsement if there is one, one I can trust. Even Savage in his own way is giving the nod yes.
So I feel very positive today, I feel good about this.
It almost makes me get back on the Bush bandwagon.
Didn’t think he would do it, but Bush came through for the conservatives.
Put a macaroni in my cap.
Damn.
John Roberts:
A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States
[Hugh Hewitt]
Posted by Checkers
On News/Activism 07/19/2005 7:15:35 PM PDT · 71 replies · 1,922+ views
HughHewitt.com ^ | 07/19/2005 | Hugh Hewitt
Iron Hugh (Hewitt) Sits Down for a Six Hour SCOTUS Special.
Posted by Checkers
On News/Activism 07/19/2005 4:08:04 PM PDT · 24 replies · 499+ views
HughHewitt.com ^ | 07/19/2005 Posted at 3:00 PM, Pacific | Hugh Hewitt
Cubs won. CubFan didn't appreciate my chant of "nineteen-oh-eight"!
There has been a bit of apology over at the Bushbasher Thread of Penance:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446460/posts
There are some holdouts over there as well, though. But somehow it seems even testier over here. Some people just don't want to be happy, I guess.
.Way to go, Torie!To: jwalsh07
Don't make the mistake of conflating what a guy writes as a hired gun to what he will write as a judge. In any event, a lot of stare decisis questions will be asked by the usual suspects in his confirmation hearings. It will be interesting to see how the swiss watch brain who was first in his class at Harvard law school, and has argued 29 cases before SCOTUS responds), because if one believes Roe is wrongly decided, if there is any decision which has less of a case for stare decisis, I don't know what it is. But then you already knew that.Roberts is the single most qualified person on this planet to serve on SCOTUS. He is just off the charts in every way imaginable. And that is what bothers me about this choice.
If I were Bush, I would have saved him for the Ginsburg or Stevens seat, when the Dems will really be in the trenches, along with a few "RINO's" maybe. His nomination could not be defeated. He was Bush's ultimate teflon coated silver bullet, and now he has "wasted" it.Roberts will be confirmed easily, (maybe something like 75-25, although it should be unanimous, but those days are gone), and there will be no filibuster. The Dems won't have the votes, and if they did, then the nuke would come down in a hurry.
I am going to take time off if I can to watch the hearings. It should be fascinating, and I want to see Roberts in action.
The President has put the 'Rats in a tough spot. They have to know that they can't stop this nomination via a filibuster, but they have to try or their wingnuts will fry them. That's what happens when a political party sells out to the wingnuts (like Howard Dean and Box-O-Rox).
I hope you feel better soon, Mama.
Uh, thats "Pukin", and if you took my advice, you might just learn something instead of looking silly and defensive in your "I know better than the President" posturing.
I will always respond rudely to nonsense. Get used to it.
Feminist Daily News Wire
July 19, 2005
BULLETIN: President Bush Nominates Right-Wing John Roberts to Supreme Court
President Bush nominated DC Circuit Court Judge John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. The Feminist Majority, the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Abortion Federation all immediately announced their intentions to oppose Roberts for the position.
“I am extremely disappointed that the President did not appoint a centrist woman to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Supreme Court,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority. “We are now going back to tokenism for women on the highest court in the land.”
“Everything we know about Judge Roberts’ record thus far indicates that he will be a solid vote against women’s rights and Roe v. Wade,” Smeal continued. “If he is to be confirmed by senators who support women’s rights, he must say where he stands on Roe and the right to privacy. The burden is on him.”
Judge Roberts, as Deputy Solicitor General, argued against Roe v. Wade, and also argued on behalf of Operation Rescue, an extreme anti-abortion group, in Bray v. Alexandria. The Feminist Majority Foundation maintains the largest clinic defense program in the country, and knows that the result of the pro-choice loss in Bray v. Alexandria was increased violence at clinics. In private practice, Roberts argued against affirmative action for minorities.
The opposition forces behind President Bush have already raised millions of dollars to support Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court. Just one such right-wing advocacy organization, Progress for America, has raised $18 million already to fight for President Bush's Supreme Court nominees. Another such organization, the Judicial Confirmation Network, has raised $3 million for its media campaign to fight any attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. Progress for America has already launched a website in support of Roberts.
The Feminist Majority will continue to examine Roberts’ record, and it will demand that Senators not confirm Roberts unless he makes clear that he will not reverse Roe and civil rights for women, minorities, and the disabled.
Groups opposing Roberts include:
Feminist Majority
National Organization for Women
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women
MoveOn
ADA Watch
National Coalition of Persons with Disabilities
These are the ONLY "organizations" they could find AGAINST Judge Roberts?!
Bwaaaahhhh...Bwaaaaahhhh...Bwaaaaaahhh!!!
AWESOME!
For Immediate Release: 7/19/2005
Contact: Josh Glasstetter
People For the American Way
email: media@pfaw.org
phone: 202-467-4999
John Roberts: Sparse Record Raises Serious Concerns
Opinions and argued cases raise doubts about where Roberts stands on protection of Americans’ constitutional rights and freedoms; Sparse record requires close Senate scrutiny to determine suitability for Court
Federal appeals court Judge John Roberts, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a sparse public record; and several of his judicial opinions and argued cases raise real concerns about his suitability for the Supreme Court, said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas.
“It is extremely disappointing that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor,” said Neas. “John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns and questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues – it will be critical for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions. Replacing O’Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans’ rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe.”
Roberts was a corporate law firm lawyer for most of his career; where he does have a record, said Neas, Roberts has failed to show a commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights, both in his role as a Deputy Solicitor General and as a judge. Neas called on all senators, regardless of political party, to take the time necessary to carefully review Roberts’ complete record and insist that Roberts openly and fully discuss his judicial philosophy on important constitutional and legal issues.
Advocating Against Privacy Rights and First Amendment Protections
As Deputy Solicitor General during the first Bush administration, Roberts tried to convince the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in a case that didn’t even directly concern that issue. The case, Rust v. Sullivan, dealt with a rule prohibiting federally funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with patients, not the validity of Roe, which protects a women’s constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Nevertheless, Roberts’ brief proclaimed that “[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled” and that the Court’s ruling that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about abortion has “no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”
Roberts urged the Supreme Court in Lee v. Weisman to rule that public schools can officially sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. The Court rejected Roberts’ arguments, upholding the principle of church-state separation that protects students’ and all Americans’ religious freedom.
Undermining Environmental Protections and Rejecting Protections for Veterans
During his short tenure as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Curcuit, Roberts has issued troubling dissents against environmental protection and veterans’ rights. In one case, Roberts wrote a dissent suggesting that the Endangered Species Act, at least as applied in a case concerning a California development project, was unconstitutional. All the other judges on the court except one, including judges appointed by President Reagan and the first President Bush, disagreed with Roberts.
In another case, Roberts argued that federal courts cannot even hear claims by American soldiers who had been tortured in Iraq as POWs during the Gulf War. His opinion was rejected by the court’s majority.
The Senate’s Duty
“The Senate is the president’s constitutional partner in appointing people to lifetime positions on the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court” said Neas. “It is the senators’ duty not to act as rubber stamps for the President’s nominees, but to examine carefully all the evidence about the nominee’s record and make an independent judgment. Particularly given Roberts’ sparse public record, confirmation must depend in large part on his willingness to share and defend his legal philosophy and fully answer senators’ questions about his views on our Constitution and protections for our fundamental rights and freedoms.”
For a detailed preliminary report on Roberts’ record, please visit http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf
******
If these creeps hate Judge Roberts, I LOVE HIM!!!
I wonder if they will ever actually comprehend that paragraph. They want a woman on the court for a woman's seat, but oppose tokenism?
Ah, no.
By the way, what did you mean in post #1779 when you said,
"You have no clue who you are talking to?"
It seems it's you who have the "real world" and the internet a little mixed up.
Eleanor Smear is not exactly what one would call intelligent. More to the point: Nobody cares what she says anyway. Feminist Majority? That is hilarious!
I'm back now; we lost power for two hours. I was dreading a hot steamy night with NO air conditioning.
Big time lightning. Major.
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.