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 ...
I wish more people understood that. An anti-abortion vote is a pro-socialism vote.
I am not sure if your claim about this being the 'sole' reason Jim supported Bush is accurate, but that isn't relevant. The latter half is. Bush has advanced solid constitutional Judges each time given an opening. A record more solid than Reagan's, according to a study that was done recently. There was no cause, and only room for praise, based on this record. He's lived up to his end.
"Roberts helped write a brief that stated, 'We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'"
Many of you are using the above quote as proof that Roberts will work to overturn Roe. It's not. He was arguing on behalf of the first Bush administration.
His personal opinion is that Roe is "settled law" which means he will do absolutely nothing to see its demise.
As for me making up the title, I apologize. I didn't know I had to use the title of the actual article. Some of you really get worked up over inconsequential stuff.
I wish it were that easy.
"FR's founder Jim Robinson endorsed Bush solely as a means to get conservative justices on the Supreme Court"
You sure about that? There must have been a couple of other reasons such as JFK himself. Just guessing here. /s
Being unconstitutional makes it unenforcable, but it remains on the books. The moment SCOTUS overturns something, all affected laws instantly turn enforcable.
Unbelievable.
Let me make this clear to you.
The President believes in appointing constitutionalists. His record proves this. He cannot be 'released' from an idealogy that is a part of his core being.
You have no legitimate complaint on this score.
i'm undecided after looking at his bio.
wasn't he speaking for the administration with those words?
What???
Your profile page says you have been a member of FR since October 1, 1998.
Geez, I've been around since just 2003 and I know posting a made-up title is a definite no-no! It is not something inconsequential. It creates multiple threads that drive people batty.
Hmmmmm......
He' Roman Catholic.
Don't underestimate what he will do as a member of the SCOTUS....
>>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.
LOL I know its not that easy. That's why I said, "I wish it were that easy".
Saying a law is uncontitutional, doesn't make it uncontitutional and that is what you were implying with your original remarks.
You're a fool.
There is wishful thinking. And then there is reality.
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.