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.
Don't bother to wipe the mud off your shoes."
I would rather eat dinner with Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor with mud on me than in the dark dining room of somebody who paints all issues with a broad black brush and calls it wisdom.
Calm down, you don't have the right or privilege to advise and consent. I suspect that you would only be satisfied with an a conservative activist judge.
Oh by all means, let's zot the newbie because he didn't parrot the official FR moderate-Republican line. After all, we all know that Roberts MUST be an original intent conservative because our make-believe conservative Republican president said so.
Personally, I would like to see something in Roberts' background that indicates his beliefs concerning the great moral issues that will decide whether or not the US survives the next 2 or 3 generations as the great nation it was meant to be, but that's just me I suppose. If we stay on the same road we are traveling now the US as we have known it won't be here for our children and grandchildren, and the only chance we have to change roads is to radically change the judiciary. This Bush term could very well be our last chance to do that, and we are supposed to just shut up and gratefully swallow whatever heretofore unknown legal eagle is handed down from on high, nevermind that more than 1/4 of Bush's voters were conservative Christians who based their votes on the expectation that one or more Justices from the mold of Scalia or Thomas would be appointed to the SC if Bush won a 2nd term. Hi there Mr. President how are you this fine day? Here's my back, you can plunge the knife in right about there thank you very much.
BTW, I have been here since 1998, and I can remember when FR was a CONSERVATIVE forum instead of a mouthpiece for Chamber of Commerce Republicanism. Now maybe you can get me zotted for my impertinence, I don't much care anymore since FR has been taken over by the me-too GOP faction.
You people can zot me and every other socially conservative FReeper on the board, but how do you propose to elect another Republican administration and Congress if those we have now continue dashing the dearest hopes of 25% of Republican voters at every turn, hmmm? I can only speak for myself and my immediate family, but if Roberts turns out to be another Souter we are through with supporting any Republican for any national level office ever again. Enuff is ENUFF. Excuse me please, I have to go take my blood pressure meds now before I explode.
With the way this court has moved recently I wouldn't mind a conservative movement originalist like a Bork.
Five Borks would definately bring back originalism back to the court.
Just because you are a conservative, an originalist, and against bad precedent that isn't in the constitution doesn't mean you are an activist.
It just means you are interpreting the constitution.
What ticks me off with O'Connor she didn't rely on the constitution all the time she would base a lot of her beleifs on how society is affected.
And even worse with Kennedy who would base a lot of his beleifs in international law. There is no place in the constitution for that.
We need justices that will strictly follow and interpret the constitution.
I like Scalia and he voted for burning the flag that it was constitutional I don't agree with that but Scalia was just interpreting the constitution as he sees it. But Scalia is also for overturning Roe v Wade because there is nothing in the constitution that gives you that right.
You rule!!! Cheers to a fellow country club conservative.
lol you summed it up perfectly I am sick and tired of liberal rule on the bench and wish I could flick a magic wand and give us five borks on the supreme court and watch the liberals like Dick Durbin's heads explode.
What would be really great if Roberts turned out to be a strict constructionist after the libs voted for him.
That would be sweet justice after we got royally screwed with Souter.
Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."
Congratulations on your long tenure as a gadabout of FR. However since I have been here slightly longer than you I can state that FR has always been pretty much like it is now in terms of different philosophical approaches to conservatism.
I remember when the Y2K crowd was here and anybody who did not agree with their belief that dehydrated beans and water should be stored away in mass quantity were considered by them to be liberals or idiots or doomed or some combination of the above.
I am frankly very used to seeing the "if-you-do-not-think-exactly-like-I-think-than-you-are-a-liberal" crowd on here. They have always been with us...and so have you...hmmmm.
Well .. what Ted Olsen would do and what Roberts would do is not relevant to their careers.
Ted Olsen was Solicitor General - which meant that he argued cases for the Govt. - that would require Ted to argue the case in which ever way the Govt wanted to proceed .. it would not have anything to do with how Ted personally felt about any issue.
It's one of the oddities of the law. A lawyer is hired to argue for the person who hires him. A Lawyer does not have a personal opinion - he just argues the case according to the law.
Yes, some lawyers never take certain cases .. but when you're a new lawyer, or you work for a big lawfirm, you argue the cases you are given - and you don't have much choice about it.
So .. if you don't know anything about the law then please stick to subjects that you do know and don't come on these threads trying to smear somebody with your ignorance.
OK. I give you credit for pulling a chuckle out of me with that line. :o)
I think Ann Coulter is right. If the man has gone through life without expressing a single personal opinion on any public issue there is something wrong. I don't think he is a conservative. I think he is a politician.
We should not have to look in a magnifying glass to try to discern what he is all about.
Thanks I hope I am not kicked off this site because I posted this.
I admit I should have used links and made a bad argument about why I think Roberts wasn't the best choice.
But I always come down on the side of being more conservative and wanting more pain for the DUmmies.
I saw that this was zotted is there anyway to appeal this, this is one of the best sites I have come across and will be disappointed if my bad post was the reason for being zotted.
I personally am not a "movement" conservative nor a Christian. My favorite Justice is Rehnquist, although I do admire Scalia and Thomas. However, if Bush had nominated Luttig I would have supported him completely.
Not everyone on the right feels as you do. Your wing of the party is important but so is mine. Take your marbles and go home if you like. But I think you need to recognize that those like myself that prefer a Rehnquist to a Thomas are needed for you to win elections. We too voted for Bush.
Of course it is possible that Roberts will be another Scalia. I believe that there is no way he will be another Souter. Too many know him. Most likely he will be in the mold of my man Rehnquist. Can you live with that or is it your way or the highway?
Maybe that is what's wrong with this country. People are being trained to put their soul in their pocket for the sake of money, expediency or politics. One way to rise to the top. But why is that okay?
I don't know why they put the zot on the keyword section. It is not on the main page though so I wouldn't worry about it. I hardly think you are in trouble. Just because you have a different opinion in terms of your conservative agenda on this matter that should not cause you a problem.
Heck I'm about as much libertarian as conservative and they've never gotten on to me (yet).
Just relax and have fun with it.
The differences between Renquist and Scalia and Thomas are very minimal, I think social conservatives would be very happy if Roberts turned about to be Renquist. Renquist might not be a flame thrower hard core movement conservative but he votes with us social conservatives most of the time.
The country club conservatives are more in the line with Kennedy and O'Connor than Renquist.
I view Renquist as a real conservative unlike Kennedy who is for international law and is horrible on states rights and O'Connor who is liberal on social issues.
Roberts clerked for Rehnquist, not O'Connor or Kennedy. To me that says something. It seems to me that if he had clerked for Scalia there wouldn't be as many doubts raised here. Why can we not give a Rehnquist clerk the benefit of the doubt? The President is a very smart man. He made a wise choice IMHO.
"Welcome to FR. Don't be a wingnut."
Hold the phone, Sam. I followed the Westmoreland thread the other night. You're telling somebody ELSE not to be a wingnut? Ya got some nerve!
I read somewhere that the justice he really admires was the justice her clerked for at the circuit court level. This was according to his roomate that he lived with in D.C for a long time. The washington post had something about it today.
At Harvard law school they had a renquist club and he wasn't even a member of it so it wasn't that he was a huge admirer of renquist it was more a matter of convienence.
I don't see him as conservatively ideological. He seems a very middle of the road type of justice. I think he has integrity and won't rule on cases based on international law but I don't nescessarily think he will be in the voting bloc with renquist, scalia, and thomas all the time and that is what we really needed. He'll probably be like O'Connor on states rights issues and on business issues and a slight notch better than her on the hot button conservative social issues.
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.