18th “American View” Program Continues Analysis Of Bush Nominee John Roberts

The American View ^ | August 13, 2005

[The_Eaglet]

Hear it now (10,621 kb)
Our 18th nationally-syndicated, one-hour radio show, “The American View,” co-hosted by Michael Anthony Peroutka and “recovering Republican” John Lofton, will be broadcast this Sunday in 37 cities in 22 states. It is another detailed look — with new material — at the views of President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court John Roberts.

On this program: We examine in-depth Robert’s helping homosexual activists achieve special rights and perpetuate their agenda by playing a key role in the Romer v. Evans case they won before the Supreme; we ask why Roberts had no “moral” or “religious” objections to helping homosexual activists since the Bible and Roman Catholic teaching denounce homosexuality; we analyze quotes from various “Christian leaders” who tell us that Roberts helping homosexuals get special rights is no big deal; and we wonder why a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney was so eager to call (as he did) a cable TV network denying that Roberts wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Also, helpfully we hope – in our fun segment – we speculate on the “Top 10 Ways” Baltimore Oriole Raphael Palmiero might have taken steroids “accidentally.”

Because this John Roberts/Supreme Court issue is so important, and because there has been a massive media campaign of disinformation about him being, supposedly, a conservative, we are, again, offering this show right now for you to listen to.

Hear it now (10,621 kb)

[The_Eaglet]

This was a very informative program, and I recommend it to all.

[Always Right]

This was a very informative program, and I recommend it to all.

What BS. They hype how evil the Romer case was, but they fail to point out what an insignificant non-role Roberts played. Then they hype an idea that the White House told MS-NBC to pull a banner that said Roberts would overturn Roe v. Wade. They spin it as though the White House is pro-abortion. The reality is if Roberts is quoted as saying he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, there would be a huge bloody fight for his confirmation.

[The_Eaglet]

Did you listen to the program completely? They have quotes about claims that the role was insignificant, and they also point out that Roberts could have refused the case.

The problem is that Roberts is quoted as saying that he would treat Roe v. Wade as law and fully and faithfully apply it. He needs to clarify that he has no intention of putting a court decision above the Fifth Amendment.

[Always Right]

The problem is that Roberts is quoted as saying that he would treat Roe v. Wade as law and fully and faithfully apply it.

As an appellate judge that is the only response he could have. He had no authority to overturn the Supreme Court.

They have quotes about claims that the role was insignificant, and they also point out that Roberts could have refused the case.

It wasn't Roberts case. Certainly he could have told his associates to f-off, that he wasn't going to help them. But that is not Roberts character. Roberts did his co-workers a favor just as they did favor for him on his cases.

[The_Eaglet]

Constitutionally he does not have authority to say that a court case is "law of the land," because Article 1 Section 1 says that Congress, not the courts, have all legislative power.

He has the authority to uphold the Constitution, which by oath is more important than following precedent traditions, and as far as the right to life is concerned, it is a shame that he would use this unconstitutional excuse to fully support judicial tyranny.

It wasn't Roberts case. Certainly he could have told his associates to f-off, that he wasn't going to help them. But that is not Roberts character.

Apparently it wasn't Roberts' character to respect the people of Colorado in stopping homosexual activists. He could have refused the case on moral grounds according to his firm, but he refused to do so. He chose to support the militant homosexuals.