Posted on 07/23/2005 10:03:42 PM PDT by johnmecainrino
Roberts took the side of pro racial preferences and quotas in the rice vs cayatano case giving racial preferences to native hawaii islanders. He argued this before the supreme court. And look who he argued against and with will tell you all you need to know about the "fake conservative" Roberts.
Judge Bork, Ted Olson, took the side arguing before the supreme court against the racial preferences in quotas arguing against Roberts.
Roberts took the side of U.S solicitor general waxman in the clinton administration arguing for the racial preferences.
This Roberts guy is another Souter on social issues.
Roberts also has as a caused tried to help minority students get into law schools. He is very pro affirmative action.
Between this and the abortion is settled we have a Souter on social issues.
Roberts as a conservative is a bad joke.
I'm waiting for the real damning information...how does he take his coffee?
I heard he also beat up some poor french fry girl and that his son's behavior is being investigated. < /sarcasm>
The guy that posted this is new -- out to stir up everything and knowing how this place has been acting lately, he will have some limited success.
I don;t know what to make of this guy. If I had to bet it would be on him being pretty conservative. But Im not sure. The hearings should be very interesting.
Chuckie Schumer has actually come up with some pretty good questions. Theyre listed in an article at NRO:
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/070387.asp
So, you would represent abortionists in a "choice" case?
He sounds like a legal whore to me. Does the guy have any principles he won't compromise?
I was just hoping for a movement conservative like Luttig.
I know Roberts was hired but his record scares me. He sides with the Clinton members of the d.c circuit more than I would like. He doesn't seem to be a passionate conservative wearing it on his sleeves.
Novak is even reporting that he wasn't even a member of the federalist society.
I can't point to one thing that gives me any assurance about this guy.
Senator Brownback is concerned about him and stated it perfectly that once you get on the court if you aren't a true conservative you tend to move to the left.
"I'm waiting for the real damning information...how does he take his coffee?"
And does he prefer mayonnaise or Miracle Whip?
Scalia himself has said that he has had to rule in ways that he personally abhorred, but felt bound by the original intent.
Just like that idiot Wexler claiming he should be denied simply because he advised a client in Bush v Gore, like about 2000 other lawyers.
And most people can't point to a single thing that gives them doubts...others will find doubts regardless.
Actually, I've noticed a surprisingly large number of people who are totally uncomprehending of the adversarial nature of our legal systems and that lawyers on a routine basis argue for or defend things that they don't personally believe in, and that there's nothing wrong with that; the sort of people that think that being a criminal defense attorney is inherently evil, for example.
It's a shame more people don't take part in debate teams in high school and college; you have one resolution for a semester and at every tournament you'll argue for and against the same resolution many times in a single weekend.
Great, you had to say that! How long till there's a thread claiming he's into "whips"?
What scares me the most about this guy is that democrat members of the senate recommended this guy.
This is the same democrat caucus that would fillabuster any true conservative when asked by Chuck Schumer and Ted Kennedy.
There is only one democrat that was willing to buck them consistently on the fillabuster issue and that was Ben Nelson.
I saw Nicole Devenish say multiple democrat senators recommended him. Besides for Ben Nelson recommending him any other dem senator being recommending him is a pause for concern.
How did he do this? By using law or by personal recommendations?
Go back to DU and stop trying to sow trouble on FR. You're fooling no one.
What scares me the most about this guy is that democrat members of the senate recommended this guy.
What scares me is you make all these accusation but have yet to even offer even a shred of proof to back it up. I suspect you are pretending to be something you are not. Source for your accusations please.
I used to do that in Yahoo! Chat way back when. I actually had two handles, one for the conservative and the other for a liberal. It was kind of fun to get people agreeing with me on one side, and then being able to argue the other side, and get those same people to agree to that as well. Made me realize the dolts that actually participated on those chats.
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.