"The Record of John G. Roberts, Jr.: A Preliminary Report This preliminary report provides a summary of the record of John Roberts, who has been a judge for less than two years, having been nominated by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and confirmed in May 2003. In compiling this report, we have examined Roberts’s pre-judicial record as well as his limited record on the bench, focusing primarily on cases raising concerns with respect to civil rights and individual liberties. Overview: Roberts’s record is a disturbing one. Among other things, Roberts is hostile to women’s reproductive freedom, and he has taken positions in religious liberty and free speech cases that were detrimental to those fundamental rights. Roberts has limited judicial experience, but even his short tenure as a judge raises serious concerns about his ideology and judicial philosophy. For example, dissenting opinions by Roberts have questioned the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act and argued that Americans tortured by Iraq when it was a terrorist state can receive no compensation. This preliminary review of Roberts’s record indicates that it falls far short of demonstrating the commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights that should be shown by a Supreme Court nominee."
Why do lesbians care so much about reproductive freedom? That's about all that is left of the female Dems.
Tripe coming from the left-wing moonbats actually warms my heart. Even John Breaux just said outside groups should "take a hike".
While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7
Now I know this guy has to be realllly good.
Anyone who thinks the Endangered Species Act is even remotely constitutional is unfit to be a lawyer, much less a judge.
OF COURSE it's unconstitutional, along with half of the other crap passed by Congress in the last 30 years.
If it's true Roberts suggested it's unconstitutional, he's a better pick than I thought - he sure has his work cut out for him.
He has been the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, and a private lawyer in Washington D.C., he argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other practitioner during the 10-year period before becoming a judge.
Aren't these the same people who keep screaming about how Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9-11?
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY don't like him!
KAa CHING !!! Roberts gets another chip for my support!
Well, as for that argument, isn't that along the lines of the odious debt thing? Sounds reasonable to me not to make the Iraqis pay twice for Saddamn.
If People for the American Way (sic) says this about Roberts, I can think of no finer endorsement.