You might have pinged the meister before quoting his mind's thoughts.
Changing the subject here...I assume that Judge Roberts is more than aware he can expect this treatment, and is prepared to undergo the scrutiny: 
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 ...
Isn't it custom for the original poster to reply to their own thread?
Just wondering where you are bimboeruption.
If you want to sling mud by making up titles, you better be brave enough to defend yourself.
John Roberts appears to be an excellent choice for SCJ from everthing I've read here on FR tonight.
I guess some people are NEVER happy.
Some Freepers amaze me. You could hand them a bag filled with $1 million and they'd sulk and say "Oh, thanks, now I have to lug this heavy bag around."
By the way, I wonder what Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas said regarding abortion in their confirmation hearings. Probably the same thing.
It is "settled law."
But, they can vote to change it in the future.
The President appears to have given us another Souter. That upper east coast Rockefeller upbringing will always show through.
You're exactly right and deserve to be commended for a good eye. Roberts is not pro-abortion in any respect whatsoever, and I'm confident that when he applies the law of the Constitution in abortion cases, conservatives will be very pleased with him.
Unappeasables.
Some amaze me; some frankly scare me.
They profess to hate judicial activism...except, of course when it suits their unrealistic worldviews.
Hardly conservative.
Like I "allowed" the Manson murders to happen. You are ridiculous.
Probably nothing less hysterical than a busload of chimpanzees with their asses on fire.
You're a fool.
And you lost tonight.
Everyone that doubted this President or accused him of betrayal was wrong. Your opinions do not count now. Anymore than than Chuckie's do.
BTW, it would take a 5-4 court to reverse Roe, with Roberts we only have four.
No, people did not think they were getting a conservative. G.W.B. objected to Souter I believe.
It's hypocritical to be for it when OUR guys do it.
Did you forget your sarcasm tag, or did you not even watch the President and soon-to-be SCJ Roberts tonight?
President Bush clearly stated that John Roberts was raised in Indiana. Can't get any more upper east coast Rockefeller upbringing than that! /sarcasm
Souter??? Snort!
Sadly, that is not true.
Since the high courts decision in Madison vs Maybury, the USSC asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.
Thanks.
As regards the judiciary, you can count me as against hypocrisy and firmly FOR original intent.
Regards,
CD
You might have pinged the meister before quoting his mind's thoughts.
Changing the subject here...I assume that Judge Roberts is more than aware he can expect this treatment, and is prepared to undergo the scrutiny:
Correction: "Marbury" as in William Marbury.
The opportunity will present itself each time a State or the Congress passes a law dealing with abortion and it is challenged up to the Supremes. Abortion is only one issue, and one that is solvable for the individual by not having one. There are other cases were the Supremes have wrongly decided constitutional law that affect us whether we consent or not. For example, the recent eminent domain case, or judges who have tried to grant rights to terrorists, or judges who have tried to grant special rights to homosexuality addicts.
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.