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 ...
Apparently you don't have any idea of what your are speaking of. In the 70s I was buying a house with the blessing of Carter's sky hight interest rates.
If you are so damn dumb that you think a man's accents reflects his political leanings you are in for a rude awakening. "W" family is of the spend the summer on Martha's Vineyard variety of Republican, where his family maintains a home and a sailing facility. His embracing of a larger and larger government is the Rockefeller branch of the Republican party that likes to summer on Martha's Vineyard.
Your take on George's handling of the war in Iraq is something I don't agree with. I don't feel it is being fought aggressively enough. Aside from the war, "W", as our president is expected to excel at all facets of the job. Not just war making. He hasn't been strong on the economy or returning conservative values to our education system. He has been weak on leading the party. Can you imagine a minority party holding up a nominee for any position that Ronald Reagan had chosen?
"W" is a weakling, a spineless jellyfish. A communist chinese general talks about sending nuclear tipped missles toward the United States and "W" is silent on the matter because the communist chinese are in bed with American business making them in bed with "W".
He is indeed a Republican Jimmy Carter. You can kid your self all you want be we elected a pig in a polk and all we got was the oink and no ham.
1. He's Catholic 2. His Wife is an executive officer of Feminists For Life, a ProLife organization 3. He worked in the Reagan administration, and was already appointed by Bush to the DC Circuit 4. All Judges have to say that in their confirmation hearings. Can you name one that has said the opposite and was confirmed? 5. The administration knows that the ProLife credeentials are a key to the base, I'd imagine they've done their homework and most like have asked him outright if we would overturn it. 5. You need at least 5, so lets say he appoints Jones or Brown or a solid Anti-Roe judge to replace either stevens/ginsburg(assuming the Rhenquist replacement is prolife as well, as is the chief), do you really think Roberts would be the lone holdout and uphold it?
You maybe right that he'd support it, but you'll need more than "it's settled law" as evidence
You've offered no evidence, no proof whatsoever that Reagan was pressured into nominating pro-choice jurists to the USSC.
When Reagan nominated O'Conner, Roe V Wade was only eight years old, the abortion issue wasn't on the radar screen for most Americans, nor was it as front and center an issue as it is today. In addition, Reagan hadn't written his now famous pro-life essay on the abortion issue, "Conscience of a Nation". I'm not making excuses, just stating the facts.
Even your sources indicate O'Conner was a mixed bag of political beliefs. Thomas Droleskey is entitled to his opinions, but its obvious he doesn't like Bush43 or the GOP in general. Drolesky thinks Pat Buchanan would have been a better nominee for the GOP in 2000. Something tells me, you feel the same way.
I was just responding to another poster who called you a fool, though I don't disagree with their assessment.
Well, I guess you made it my business when you posted the article with your inflammatory made-up title. I think you're a deep cover class of '98 troll who thinks they're smart enought to disrupt conservatives with your "shocking" posts.
Changing titles of articles? You stated that you didn't even realize that was a no-no. You're a regular freeper and conservative, yeah, right?
It was painful, painful I tell you, checking out your posting history. Took about 30 seconds of my life.
As for the pro-Roberts folks, the ESA dissent case is hopeful but far from a consistent judicial record of originalism. He may well be just a conservative that will go case-by-case and is not driven by overriding principles of constitutional interpretation. The fact is, we have no idea. At best we have hints. He could be a home run and he could turn out to be a huge disappointment; at this time, I haven't seen nearly enough information to suggest one or t'other.
As for the anti-Roberts folks, the best you can hope for is an originalist. No justice is going to outlaw abortion in the 50 states. That is no more in the constitution than is Roe v. Wade or Lawrence v. Texas.
Bottom line, the guy is a huge risk (unless Bush has data from private conversations that we do not have and Bush's assessment is better than it was of Putin). We have no idea how he's going to come out on consitutional interpretation or stare decisis issues--and his attitude on those two issues will determine whether this is a good or bad appointment.
He's unlikely to be worse than O'Conner. Probably at least a little better than her. But there is no evidence I have seen that he will be as good as Thomas or Scalia. For a real change in the Court, he needs to be.
If any of you would like to sign the Town Hall petition to urge your senators to confirm Judge Roberts, here is the link:
http://www.townhall.com/action/ProtectOurConstitution2.html
I know I got a 5% on our latest refinance on our house.
Darn straight better than you got during the Carter years.
I'm from the middle of the country, don't have much of an accent, and don't judge people much on their's, or lack thereof.
I am certainly not going to entertain the Rockefellers anytime soon. i also don't see class envy as accomplishing much either. I'm very content with my life, I would like to see social security privatized, for my son, won't happen in my lifetime.
I will read more of Jim Robinson. But I think almost everyone that voted for Bush also didn't want Kerry.
Good point.
Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution _is_ the law of the land, and therefore, Roe v. Wade is not.
Actually I think "BUSH WINS!" is the best post in the whole history of FR, but thanks!
That is not what the Constitution says.
Article 1, Section 1 specifically states:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
And besides, the law of the land is what the Supreme Court says it is. Read Marbury vs Madison.
Softly, softly, catchee monkee..
The ensuing battle will be "A living Constitution" v "settled law".
The Dems cite a "living constitution" every time they usurp it and make their own law. Then, once they have done that, they declare their travesty "settled law" so it won't be reversed.
We need to slide solid conservatives onto the court by whatever means possible, and slowly drive the activists out. THEN we can deal with their "settled law"!
Well, he's clearly not African-American, and probably not Italian. Other than that . . .
Since the Article 1 Section 1 is supreme, the Constitution gives legislative authority to Congress, not the Supreme Court. The interpretive authority applies to the parties at suit, but does not alter existing laws.
That is 100% correct. And it will take time to chip away at the precedents. I wouldn't expect any formal action on Roe v Wade for at least 5 years.
I said ROMAN Catholic, making a distinction with those who are CINO.
Original intent is at the heart of this issue, but its also only half of the issue. The real issue is the difference between the way things are today and the way things ought to be. Marbury v Madison set a precedent that exists until today and goes to the heart of Roe v Wade. The perfect example of judical activism.
"I was referring to a time when abortion is overturned on the Federal level.
It goes back to the states. "
Yes, I understand what you mean, and it is the view of most people. However, I'm don't agree with this view. Which is to say, the federal government now passes much legislation having to do with our everyday lives. In fact, this is not prohibited by the Constitution, as I read it. Nor are the Senate and House prohibited from passing a law against abortion by the Constitution as I understand it.
Please don't be confused by this. This could only happen after Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. I'm not advocating that the Supreme Court invent a law outlawing abortion. Nor do I disagree that the states are free to pass such laws. I am merely saying that if the House and Senate of the United States passed a law regarding abortion, it would supersede the laws passed by the states.
Why not??? Ms. Brown has been examined for years, there can't be any more surprises here in discovery. The Senate allready confirmed her this year so it would be hard for the Rats to say she wasn't qualified. This would get the Court the woman/minority position (even if she isn't black enough for some or woman enough for the left). Confirmation of Roberts would send Reinquist the signal he needs to retire, so Bush might as well hit another homerun with Brown.
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.