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.
Not sure where you get that from. I think he'll be a vast improvement over O'Connor. But even if he is what you think that is good enough for me. I don't care much for "hot button conservative social issues." It bothers me more that the Government can take my home then that Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Although I disagree with them both.
I might be wrong I just read an article from the times hearald record that makes Roberts out to be more conservative than I thought. He took a stand against racial quotas in 1978 supreme court case.
Now only if he will reverse bad precedent we might have a justice in the mold of a Renquist which would be great for social conservatives.
He'll never write broad movement opinions like Scalia but he can still be a good conservative. And as cheif justice he wouldn't have the power to decide who would write the majority opinion in a conservative ruling. As an associate justice he might be fine.
Lawyers are not activists. They are hired by clients who pay them to argue a case. He doesnt make his million dollars plus a year as partner in his law firm by chasing after movement legal cases and doing them pro bono. His arguing this case for the State of Hawaii tells you no more about his views than his writing a brief against Roe v. Wade for the first Bush administration. In each case, he was a lawyer advocating for his client. Jeez!!
On Kelo I think he would have been in the dissenting opinion.
O'Connor was very good on property rights and most state rights issues.
I see Roberts being solid in this area. But remember that will leave us with Kennedy being the swing vote who is horrible in this area. We have to wait for one of the liberal justices to retire to get the court righted in the right direction in this area.
Source??
Doesnt surprise me at all. Coulter and similar wack jabs like Michael Savage dont represent conservatism to me. They are just idiots who like the sound of their voices.
That (being a partisan) and age are why Olsen wasnt considerd for a position on the Court.
record online.com
you can go to google and type in roberts not party line vote
but you need a to pay a subscription to get onto it now.
I was able to see the site when it was first posted on google but now it isn't available.
Ah, okay, thank you..
Oh so we want activist Judges to legislate from the bench if they support the right causes?
Is there some law that af lawyer has to accept 'employment'
to argue something with which he disagrees?
Referring to Ann Coulter as a "wack job" calls into question your own judgement, pal.
ROFLMAO
Bingo.
I see. So Roberts arguing against abortion and for school prayer means NOTHING, but Roberts arguing for affirmative actin should be taken as his views? Interesting double standard, and shows where you are coming from.
I once represented a person accused of murder. I guess that makes me pro-homicide.
Yes, but never forget, Bush is a liberal, which is to say, a servant of our parasitical elites, just as was his daddy. Souter was not a mistake.
Just because Bush is leading us in war doesn't make him conservative. Not all liberals are pacifists; Franklin Roosevelt and LBJ also led us during wars.
When will conservatives learn?
Dear Soul Seeker,
"I see. So Roberts arguing against abortion and for school prayer means NOTHING, but Roberts arguing for affirmative actin should be taken as his views?"
One can turn that around:
I see. So Roberts arguing for affirmative action means NOTHING, but Roberts arguing against abortion and for school prayer should be taken as his views?
It is legitimate to point out that Mr. Roberts' real views are hidden from plain sight at this time. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I pray it works out well. I fear it may not.
To express that concern isn't wacko.
Ms. Coulter makes an excellent point that in the past, when conservatives have nominated ciphers, we have always been taken to the cleaners. It isn't unreasonable to point that out, and to point out that we are once more placed in such a difficult position.
sitetest
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 our accusations please.
-------
Doubt if you will get them from him. He is obviously a du troll. No facts just accusations, typical at du but not at FR.
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.