Who are these people and does it matter at all?
Apparently they're suckers who have fallen for the LA Times' gambit hook, line, and sinker.
Concerning this move, it's absolutely idiotic.
Here's the real deal, folks. Whether you believe this Roberts-bashing nonsense or not is irrelevant. He's all we conservatives have - like it or not. Because if Judge Roberts is not confirmed (to include having his name withdrawn), it will be like throwing chum in shark-infested waters. We will not get a more conservative candidate for this seat.
President Picks Conservative for Supreme Court July 20, 2005
Washington, DC – Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio praised President Bush today for his selection of Judge John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Roberts, a conservative who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration, was nominated by the current President Bush to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001.
“We are optimistic that an apparent conservative will be replacing left-wing liberal Justice O’Connor,” said Delgaudio. “The President has kept his word to the conservative electorate that put him into office to appoint an originalist who will not legislate from the bench but rather interpret and enforce the law.
The next Supreme Court Judges will be a significant factor in future Court decisions.
Bush may have this and one other appointment- Rehnquist's replacement- hopefully.
Currently there are five loose constructionists on the SCOTUS: Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy.
There are two strict constructionists: Thomas and Scalia.
Bush "owes" his supporters, many of whom voted for him and supported him just because of the chance he would be appointing as new SCOTUS judges, strict constuctionists.
Roberts is still really an unknown quantity.
His actions involving the homosexual case don't appear THAT significant, but after Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy, Conservatives are justifiably gun-shy.
Bush COULD have selected any one of several candidates with solid conservative, strict constructionist records, but he choose this "dark horse" as it were.
At this point, I don't what to believe about Roberts - I keep swinging one way or the other on his appointment, consequently I have not sent any messages one way or the other to my representatives or the White House - as if that mattered
This group feels they have legitimate concerns regarding an action taken by Roberts which he could have avoided and which resulted in a bad decision by the SCOTUS. I share those concerns.
Roberts has also made some very unsettling statements regarding the importance of sticking with prior long-standing SCOTUS legal precedent. Since we both know decisions on equal but separate facilities, and Roe versus Wade, not to mention Emery, are really unconstitutional cases of legislating from the bench, I wonder what he means.
Perhaps he is just being cagy and trying to keep the Dems off balance. I hope so.
Perhaps he is a decent guy, but someone whose opinions can be swayed by the likes of the Evil 5 still on the bench.
He certainly doesn't appear to have the kind of dogmatic, stolid, unbending conservative principles of a Clarence Thomas or Scalia.
I guess only time will tell here, and we can only hope for the best - whatever that is.
I do know that George Bush II started his Presidency with great promise in his first term. He did a good job with the war on terrorism and has succceeded in preventing any new attacks on American soil. But we know Al Quaida takes a long time to plan major events.
His second term has so far been a disappointment.
His statements about illegal invaders and his "guest worker" program, border on the moronic.
His actions in the Middle East are growing wearisome. Iraq will NEVER be secure with a Baathist regime still in power in Syria, and we will soon be under another nuclear threat - not from the relatively rational Soviets, thanks to Ronald Reagan - God Bless his soul - but from the lunatics in Iran.
Some of Bush's appointees have been most unwise - Tom Kean as Chairman of the 9-11 Commission, retention of Norman Minetta, George Tennet, and Luis Freeh, appointments of Chrissie Whitman, Tom Ridge, and Chrissie Whitman.
In the long run, history will judge Bush on the basis of his last term and Conservatives will judge Bush on the basis of his impact on the Federal Court System, an arm of the government which has been acting in an increasingly rogue manner without any challenges from anyone.
The future of our Republic and the Constitution could very well rest on the choices of George W. Bush for the Supreme Court. God give him wisdom - he will need it.