"You seem a little irritable. Have you got sand in your vagina?"
Posted on 08/12/2005 5:53:40 PM PDT by boryeulb
Indeed. I was wondering about those pesky little details myself.
"You seem a little irritable. Have you got sand in your vagina?"
Jimmy used to read Playboy in the toilet. (this is so freeken stooopid).
He's an effete, metrosexual.
I sense he's another Anthony Kennedy.
Hooooooooooooooo brother.
If he chooses to take them.
I would hope that Roberts is not just older but wiser now.
If I understand Roberts role in that case, he was asked to role-play Scalia for his colleagues and he spent a total of 6 hours helping them. The fact that he colleagues thought he would make a good Scalia says something about how they viewed him. I assume when Roberts went in front of the Supreme Court, he had some of his liberal lawyers role-play Ginsburg. Too me this episode is re-assuring. I find Ann Coulter and others to be way over-reacting and everything I see about Roberts indicates he will be an outstanding CONSERVATIVE justice. I have no reservations about him and am 100% certain he will join the Thomas and Scalia wing of the court.
Why would liberals give a hoot about someone to play Scalia? They know that the devil will ice-skate before Scalia votes for one of their cases.
I still have $850 that says Roberts will be a Rehnquist or better. I had to takers so far for a total of $150.
Yet another load of idiotic crap.
You can always decline a case, we don't have slavery in this country.
However, it's pretty clear to me that he took the pro bono case because it was an opportunity to use his specialized skills in pro bono work. Not very often does a lawyer get to be involved in a Supreme Court case. The vast majority of lawyers don't have that opportunity even once in their entire career. This was right up his alley. I can tell you from experience that it would be a whole lot more interesting than representing deadbeats who don't pay their rent, and then resist evictions, which is the usual pro bono case.
And despite that rhetoric from our side, it really was not a landmark gay rights case. In fact, it was more of an affirmative action case, but it was on a very tangential issue--the question of whether you can give affirmative action to some people, but then discriminatorially ban certain other groups of people from receiving affirmative action.
It's sort of like the question of how much you have to pay your neighbor if you kill his slave. The real problem is murder and slavery itself, not the issue of how much you owe.
Why??? Because they know Scalia will drill them with questions. They can't afford to be caught off guard by a tough question and made to look bad in court.
So Roberts should have given them softballs.
And Libertarianism does not sit well with True Believers - who feel it is their duty (due to the purity of their cause - whatever that may be) to impose their agenda on everyone else whether they like it or not. ("You don't know what's best for you! Now shut up and obey - OR ELSE!")
If Judge Roberts is a jurist who honestly interprets the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, and not as a "living document" (therefore rendering it meaningless), then I'm all for his confirmation to the SCOTUS.
Perhaps he did. But more likely as a class guy he probably gave his colleagues an honest effort and expected them to do the same when he asked for a favor.
Ah, the REAL Charlie's Angels.
I see Roberts as almost a Reaganesque figure. Very personable who gets along even with liberals, but with very conservative values. Those on the far left should be very concern, the few on the right are overreacting. Part of the overreaction comes from being burned before, but Roberts is as far from Souter as you can get.
It's simply baffling to me that so many who've mourned the condition of our SCOTUS will just give a free pass to a guy they don't know that much about after all our experiences with judges like O'Connor. Not very prudent.
We shouldn't be afraid to ask tough questions...just to be on the safe side.
But therein lies the problem..."if"
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is a description of his role in the Playboy case. In the homosexual case, I think he was the lead lawyer and argued the case. And from my own point of view, the easy answer is that where you are the lead lawyer, you get to turn stuff down if you have a philosophical bias about the argument--that is a cheap answer because I have lots of good friends who are homosexual and can well imagine that the answer in a situation where I needed to account for some pro bono time and had a friend trying to get me to take the case might well be a lot more difficult.
As to your other point, reality is that this guy appears to have made himself the same kind of blank slate Souter was when he was appointed. You have absolutely no basis on which to found your hope that this guy will be the kind of justice you want.
Maybe your prayed for will turn out. But most often in life where your only hope is a prayed for, you lose. As Ms. Coulter points out, there is no reason conservatives need to be in this position where there are a number of potential justices out there (Luttig; Janice Rogers Brown; Edith Jones; and others) who are solid well qualified appointments where you know precisely where they come down.
George II is kind of a dim bulb himself--you really can't rely on his intellectual capacity to figure out what this really intelligent sophisticated guy will do on the bench if appointed. Roberts will have smoked him in the interview process without regard to where he really comes down. And you just have no basis in the record anywhere to determine what Roberts' real personal convictions are.
And we don't really need genuses either--Clarence Thomas is one of the most effective conservative justices in my lifetime; smarter than he is given credit for; but forceful in his convictions and thoughtful in his management of his support staff to get great opinions that come close to perfect from my point of view.
Lots of better candidates for this position than Roberts. Hopefully we luck up here--for my own part, I don't like to rely on luck to get good results.
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.