I have been reading this thread, and I am patiently waiting for someone to post proof that Roberts is a conservative. A 99-0 voice vote in 2003 for a place on the DC Court screams moderate -- another O'Connor -- exactly what Specter asked for. I dread we have been 'Bushed' again.
You are wrong.
Maybe this works for you, maybe it doesn't, but this is what I can offer for now:
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."
Levin's opinion is as good as anybody's on this issue.
Starr says he is a traditional conservative.
Schumer just said he voted against him in committee. What else do you want? His wife is the executive director of Feminists for Life. He said the decision on Roe was flawed.
Is that enough for you?
Bush has honored the wishes of his conservative voters and gave a big boost to his party with this pick. I had no need to be worried.
This is a copy of a post by arbusto99 in a different thread:
Info from slate.com's biography of him:
Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).
His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.
Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).
For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort—in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden—to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.
Separation of Church and State
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)
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. 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)
For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)
Criminal Law
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)
Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)
Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)
Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)
In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.
This is the first I've heard of Roberts, so I have no knowledge of his conservative credentials.
However, I did find a document online from some Liberal group, strongly opposing his nomination to the DC circuit court of appeals... He looks very promising to me. :)
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
Fletcher J
Yes, we have been "Bushed" again. Again, President Bush has kept a campaign promise and did what his record suggested he would do by nominating a solid conservative to the SC.
"I have been reading this thread, and I am patiently waiting for someone to post proof that Roberts is a conservative. A 99-0 voice vote in 2003 for a place on the DC Court screams moderate -- another O'Connor -- exactly what Specter asked for. I dread we have been 'Bushed' again."
I think I speak for many, at this point, by saying: Zip it!
It sounds as though you are so "conservative", that you're in a place all your own. It sure isn't CONSERVATIVE, though.
There is no such thing as a "99-0 voice vote."
Still waiting Bubba....
http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap2/freneau.html
I. Freneau as Leader of 18th Century Naturalism
1. Fresh interest in nature.
2. The belief that nature is a revelation of God.
3. Humanitarian sympathy for the humble and oppressed.
4. The faith that people are naturally good.
5. That they lived idyllic and benevolent lives in a primitive past before the advent of civilization.
6. The radical doctrine that the golden age will dawn again when social institutions are modified, since they are responsible for existing evil.