Roberts' wife is unequivocal in opposition to Roe v. Wade

Buffalo News ^ | 7/22/05 | Richard Serrano

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

A new Supreme Court nominee means another chance to stoke the incendiary debate on the issue of abortion. But for the lawyer wife of Federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the matter is clearly settled.

While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill this week, there was no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.

A Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the pro-life movement. She lends her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington-based organization - Feminists for Life of America - that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the divisive issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern that his wife's views might suggest that he also embraces efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.

"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."....

[eureka!]

Re#57 I share your spirit but that is not the way it can work, IMHO. The squishy middle would vote out anybody posing such 'drastic' measures. Thus, as the left did, we need to stealthly dismantle that which they have constructed...

[absolootezer0]

libs will say that she's been brainwashed by her husbands anti-civil rights propaganda. they'll call her subjective and servile, a woman of the fifties who believes that the man is master.
not that i believe this, but that's the type of thing they'd say.

[old and tired]

Of course JR BETTER not be the first we've heard of.

The fact that his own children are adopted practically guarantees he won't be.

[kx9088]

I thought the quotation marks would have been enough to infer sarcasm. =p

[Ol' Sparky]

It didn't matter what Ginsburg's husband's views were because Clinton and the Democrats knew were she stood on the issues. Too bad we can't say the same thing about Roberts.

[Shawndell Green]

I have a kid and I was kid.

Kids can be controlled so that they behave in public.

I was a holy terror as a kid and my mother always had to yell at me many times until she would finally get really mad and give me a bunch of hard smacks. She never had me under control. She always gave me too many warnings before she finally punished me. My Dad never gave me any warning at all, out of the blue would come a smack for the slightest little infraction, and after he smacked you, he explained why he smacked you. Since I knew he might smack me for the slightest infraction, I always played it safe around him and minded my Ps and Qs. My mother spanked me lots more than my Dad ever did, but his methods were effective and Mom's were not.

My daughter was always a sweet, well behaved child and I never had to spank her, just giving her a sharp word was enough. My wife had a method to make sure that my daughter did not make noise or misbehave in church. My wife would quietly tell my daughter that if she did not behave, that my wife would give her a smack when they were out of church. Then, if my daughter did not listen, my wife would just keep showing her an additional finger to indicate the number of smacks her misbehavior was going to cost her when they got home. After a couple spankings at home, with the number of smacks equal to the number of fingers my wife flashed to my daughter during church, my daughter got the message and was both quiet and well behaved during church.

Getting a child to be well behaved every minute is not possible. Having enough control over your child so that the child behaves when out in public is not difficult. It just takes discipline and consistency. It is not much different than training a dog, really, but most folks are not very good a training their dog, either.

[Eva]

I don't think that my husband would appreciate being held responsible for my views. No way, he'd muzzle me first.

[Shawndell Green]

"The GOP certainly doesn't stand unequivocally for either of these."

Which party with a chance of winning an election does?

[NeoCaveman]

Heinz was a liberal Republican.

[Ol' Sparky]

I'm with Chuckie Schumer on this one. I'd like to know if Roberts believes Roe should be overturned. Maybe he and Sen. Brownback can lead a bipartisan effort to have Roberts injected with truth serum.

[Lunkhead_01]

So am I, but neither Roberts' wife nor I have been nominated to be elevated to a Justiceship on the Supreme Court.

But I bet the Demonrats will attack Mrs. Roberts even though they would squeal like stuck PIGS if someone questioned the beliefs of Teresa Hindend Kerry or Victoria Kennedy.

[Shawndell Green]

Then you would be wrong.

You must not get out much.

There are families whose children never behave and there are families where the children are always well behaved while out in public. The difference is in the time, effort, and effectiveness of the parenting.

The training has to take place before the kid is in front of the camera, so that being well behaved in public is a habit that continues, even when the kid is tired. This is a four year old kid, not a two year old.

She should have put more effort into teaching her kids to behave in public and less into selecting their outfits.

[Revenge of Sith]

I've read in the past that Nancy Reagan was pro-life. Her ill-advised position on stem cells was only in the aftermath of her husband's illness.

[rockthecasbah]

I would myself prefer that Roe v. Wade be overturned. Notwithstanding that and the fact that I'm not a lawyer, I understand that subsequent SCOTUS pro-life decisions could so weaken and erode Roe v. Wade as to render it meaningless without ever actually overturning it. I've heard this suggested in some circles but don't have the legal training to articulate just how this could happen. Anyone want to try?

[TracyPA]

Well, my nephew always managed to misbehave in public and punishment never worked with him. He was spanked, talked to, sent to his room-nothing worked. He was just a hyper kid. He threw something on a ladies white pants at a party and as his father was dragging him up the stairs to his room he kept saying "But, but Daddy I don't know what makes me do those things!" His younger brother and sister were entirely different. I always felt sorry for the poor kid-these days they probably would have him drugged up with Ritalin.

He did grow out of it. He is in law school in Alabama and politically very conservative.

[joyspring777]

I would not try, however, the Republicans have never demonstrated an ability to slowly tear down any liberal monument. They usually leave it standing, and liberals depend on this as well as other things.

If it comes down, it will come down in court due to Evangelical and Catholic backed attorneys, not by careful, determined Republican lawmakers hands.

[Protagoras]

Roberts' wife is unequivocal in opposition to Roe v. Wade

That makes one of them.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

Schumer and Kennedy will no doubt demand that Roberts divorce his wife as a condition of being confirmed..

Or drown her...