Posted on 07/19/2005 7:23:47 PM PDT by bimboeruption
"Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
George, not the nominee has the upper east coast taint.
Some members of FR are full of surprises. No matter what "W"'s track record is he is always given a good deal of slack at moments like this nomination. He never fails to disappoint because he isn't a conservative. At best he is a moderate, big government Republican. If he hits some heavy seas in this nomination he will throw him over. He doesn't have the grit to fight. Have you heard anything out of him lately about social security reform. Of course not. He hit some rough waters and just forgot about it.
"W" reminds me of his father in a debate, looking at his watch instead of getting on with the task at hand.
No sarcasm meant. Just someone looking for a conservative president while realizing "W" is the Republican's Jimmy Carter.
I'll be interested to find out his opinion on eminent domain.
The fool has an interesting posting history too.
Signed up October 1, 1998.
Made their first post July 13, 2004.
I know I lurked for awhile before I posted, but not 6 YEARS!
Also not much of a posting history but during the run-up to the election.
This appointment is clearly driving the moonbats crazy. Hmmmmm.....
"He' Roman Catholic.
Don't underestimate what he will do as a member of the SCOTUS"
And so is Justice Kennedy. So what does that tell you?
There is absolutely NO evidence which proves Ronald Reagan yielded to pressure from anyone to nominate pro-choice jurists to the USSC. The fact is, Reagan never did what you're accusation is implying. Reagan was a strong pro-lifer and a man who believed in the sanctity of life. NO POTUS can be sure how his eventual appointments to the USSC will turn out. Eisenhower never knew how Earl Warren would turn out. Same with Nixon and Burger. Same goes for O'Conner and Kennedy with Reagan.
">>Supreme Court historian David Garrow of Emory University said that while Roberts is a conservative, he is not in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.<<
Interesting."
I wonder what he meant by that?"
What are we replacing all the aborted babies with?? Certain groups don't have abortions.
But Roe and the cases that set up Roe with all of the eminations and penumbras were badly decided. A constructionist will chip away at that logic. But Roe will hold on by a fingernail even if all of its legal underpinnings are destroyed.
By a strict interpretation of the Constitution, abortion is not addressed at all.
Consequently, it is an issue reserved to the States and the people, where it should lie.
Abortion is wrong, its legalized murder, but murder is not normally a federal issue.
LOL!
Yeah, President Bush's accent very much reflects his upper east coast taint. /S
I agree some members of FR are full of surprises, you being one of them, in not being happy with this nomination.
As far as your comment about the President looking at his watch instead of getting on with the task at hand....Puhleeeze. There's a little something going on right now called a war, and our president is handling it aggressively.
And he's the Republican's Jimmy Carter? Evidently you weren't alive in the 1970's. Inform yourself and you'd post a little more intelligently.
Bush? Roberts hasn't argued anything for Bush. Possibly Bush 41, Reagan for sure, but not Bush 43--at least not that I've heard yet.
Roberts is a solid pick.
Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush. 18 year old fighter pilot, Yale first baseman and 41st POTUS.
Bush 41, then. You should have specified.
I don't see how the fact that he argued against abortion--even if it was on someone else's behalf--means that his views on abortion are questionable. The man is solid. Let's give him a chance.
Do you think that Brown would be nominated? That would mean 2 straight judges from the DC circuit?(not impossible, but unlikely?) also, would that open the possibility of Estrada to the DC Circuit to replace one of them?
Theres a lot of misdirection being attempted with the abortion issue, there are good number of liberals coming out and saying what a great guy he is, but Im not seeing anything suggesting, let alone anyone stepping forward to prove, that Roberts is conservative.
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.