Posted on 09/07/2005 9:58:38 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Yes. As Governor and as President, Reagan helped gays (including one son).
Defending the rights of gays **can** be as important as defending the rights of everyone (presuming we are talking about actual civil rights and not the current PC use of "rights" as entitlements or special privileges).
Rubbish. Judge Roberts is far more conservative than Justice O'Conner. That moves the Court to the Right.
Judges Owen, Brown, Estrada, and Pryor are as conservative as Chief Justice Rehnquist, as are several others (e.g. SG Olsen, etc.).
CJ Rehnquist considered Judge Roberts to be one of his own, so Judge Roberts for CJ Rehnquist keeps the Court even...all that needs to happen to move the Court to the Right is for O'Connor's new replacement to be less than a 1970's liberal feminist. I've named several above who all qualify.
Easily.
Agreed. But being able to spin the 2nd nominee as a Rehnquist replacement paves the way for an easy confirmation for a conservative. Having GOPers being able to go out and say this is just a conservative for a conservative is a huge plus and it kills the Democrat arguement that this is going to change the balance of the court. The GOP will simply be able to say it does not, it is a conservative for a conservative.
She may not be all that bad. After all, Scalia is a good friend of Ginsburg, and there's scant evidence that that personal friendship has influenced his voting.
"Yes. As Governor and as President, Reagan helped gays (including one son)."
Errr....does Doria know about this?????
Roberts simply was helping out colleagues in his office just like they would help Roberts out in preparing for a big case.
There is no proof that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Many think he would consider it settled law.
Roberts has also been quoted as saying, "settled law depends to a degree on the bench on which you sit". As a circuit court judge, a Supreme Court ruling is settled law. Roberts is a devote Catholic whose wife is a pro-life activists. Outside of helping friends in a few cases, Roberts career has been devoted to conservative causes. To suggest he is just some liberal in hiding is a preposterous claim.
You have no idea whether Roberts will be as conservative as Rehnquist. No one can know.
No one is absolutely certain the sun will rise tomorrow either, but I am as confident in the sun rising as I am in Robert being a staunch conservative.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I see your point but knew all along the 2nd nominee would be the blood bath. At least with Bush nominating Roberts for Chief Justice, more hearings are prevented, sparing us from ad nauseum bloviating from the Dems. Since Roberts is more or less a "shoe-in", I'd much rather see the GOP and the President rally around ONE conservative and fight to the death over him/her, if need be.
Yes. It may seem like a nit. But in the battle of public opinion, being able to spin an arguement a certain way can make a huge difference, eventhough the reality isn't any different. I really hope it doesn't matter.
Furthermore, Roberts may (I haven't seen confirmation of this) have played the role of Justice Scalia in a mock Supreme Court session on that case. Either talking with a subordinate or playing Scalia would not constitute helping gay activists.
And it seems like you are unaware of Chief Justice Rehnquist's position in the last case when Roe v. Wade was reconsidered. If you were, you would know to a certainty that Roberts will be equal to, or better than, Rehnquist on this precise subject.
As Mark Twain said, your reluctance about Roberts indicates that "you are getting drunk on the smell of someone else's cork."
John / Billybob
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.