Why liberals should worry about Roberts. Ask Congressman Trent Franks.

www.house.gov ^ | July 19, 2005

[new yorker 77]

Representative Franks Praises President’s Nomination of Judge John Robert to the Supreme Court

July 19, 2005—Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) issued the following statement this evening regarding President Bush’s nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. as the replacement justice of Sandra Day O’Connor for the Supreme Court of the United States:

“Based on what I know of Judge John Roberts, I believe future American generations will recall his nomination to the United States Supreme Court with abiding respect and affection toward President George W. Bush.”

“Judge John Roberts has proven himself to be a man of judicial fealty to the plain and timeless intent of the United States Constitution as written.”

“I believe the nation owes President George W. Bush a debt of heartfelt gratitude for his wise and courageous nomination of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court.”

“I believe the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court will be a centerpiece in the honorable legacy of President George W. Bush.”

[new yorker 77]

I was listening to the John Batchelor program late last night.

Batchelor was speaking to MSNBC reporter Tom Curry.

Curry spoke about a loud exchange between the very Conservative Congressman Trent Franks and John Roberts. Franks approached Roberts and slapped him on back, shook his hand, they spoke for a long time.

When asked by Curry, Franks stated that we go back a long time and share mutual friends in conservative circles.

If someone as conservative as Franks is pals with Roberts, why would anyone consider him another Kennedy, O'Conner or Souter.

Democrats do not like Roberts.

They know what Bush has handed them. A Teflon Bork.

[RoadTest]

I LOVE IT!!!

[stockpirate]

I am a conservetive and I am worried about Franks.

[new yorker 77]

I have a liberal co-worker who follows politics.

He was asking me what I thought about Roberts.

He thought Roberts is more of a moderate than a conservative.

When I called Roberts "The Teflon Bork", he got very nervous and annoyed.

How do you know that?

What gives you that impression?

I told him to enjoy 35 years of Dubya mentality running the highest court in the land.

[new yorker 77]

I am a conservative.

I heard everything Roberts said.

Uneducated liberals and lib-Republican media whores translate some of Roberts statements to mean he is more of a moderate.

He is not moderate.

He is brilliant and conservative.

He toyed with the liberals on the panel.

His analysis of the Constitution and the judges role in applying is exactly what we need on the court.

It was as solid as anything Thomas or Scalia has ever said.

[Pukin Dog]

Amen.

[DocH]

“Judge John Roberts has proven himself to be a man of judicial fealty to the plain and timeless intent of the United States Constitution as written.”

Judicial fealty?

The question is, and tell me in plain, non-ambulance-chaser language...

Is he going to rule, eventually, that the 2nd Amendment, means what it says, is an INDIVIDUAL right, and is, as the amendment PLAINLY states - NOT to be infringed.

If we ever lose this right, the rest are sure to follow (but of course, not without a lot of freedom-robbing gun-grabbers dying).

By the way, does anyone know if gun-grabbing media-whore, Chuckie Schumer, or any other Senator (i.e., Feinswein), asked Judge Robert any questions related to the 2nd Amendment?

[stockpirate]

Sorry my comment should have read I am a conservetive and I am worried about Roberts, not Franks, I could care less about Franks.

It isn't that I am not a true conservetive it is just we have been burned before. And it is my hope that Bush gets at least two more appointments to the court before he leaves office. Oh, and while I am hoping I hope that it is the leftist loons that he gets to replace.

[inquest]

"Conservative" only in the sense that he's rather inclined to conserve the gains that liberals have made on the court. He practically came out and said that there could be cases where he'd consider the precedent unconstitutional, but would uphold it anyway in the interests of "stability".

[arthurus]

"moderate" hmmm. I think what we have here is Wishful Thinking; Hope Against Hope; hoping Saying It Makes It So.

[scottdeus12]

"I told him to enjoy 35 years of Dubya mentality running the highest court in the land."

Dude, I love that line....thanks!

[BQ91]

I am in Austin and have a good friend who is a professor at UT law school. He is moderately liberal. He told me Roberts is the liberals worst nightmare! He knows him and people very close to him, is is very conservative in the strict sense more a Thomas then Scalia, he said in philosophy. The difference is he is extremely likable and as an attorney very persuadable. He will not isolate Kennedy as Thomas and Scalia do, he will be a major force in bring the middle more to the right! This is the big problem from a liberal stand point. If Bush gets a conservative thru to take O'Connor's spot then Kennedy becomes the key vote going forward. Kennedy and Roberts are very close, which no one seems to be talking about! Roberts as Chief will be much more influential in moving the other Judges to the right, more than any other conservative Bush could have nominated I was told. Again, Roberts will be very conservative, not as sharp a writer as Scalia, he said he would be a split between Thomas and Rehnquist FWIW. He actually said he would be like this other famous conservative Judge who I have never heard of and cannot remember the name.

This just a FYI, but this person (liberal law prof)was very down on Monday and is a friend of the families, thinks that the court will be much different over next 20 years. He thinks Bush will name Jones next than will get to name one other judge before his term ends, his greatest fear nest would be M. Estrada, he said he is the most Conservative and brilliant candidate out there and being Hispanic the Republican could get him thru!

[reformedliberal]

He toyed with the liberals on the panel.

I saw no notes. He never looked anywhere except directly at the questioner. He never once lost his temper or his composure.

Incredibly impressive.

[miele man]

"...does anyone know if gun-grabbing media-whore, Chuckie Schumer, or any other Senator (i.e., Feinswein), asked Judge Robert any questions related to the 2nd Amendment?"

I heard several hours of the hearings but certainly not all. I did not ever hear any mention of the 2d Amendment or gun control. I suspect that if it had been brought up, Mr. Roberts would have declined to take a position since it could come before the court in the future.

[DocH]

I heard several hours of the hearings but certainly not all. I did not ever hear any mention of the 2d Amendment or gun control. I suspect that if it had been brought up, Mr. Roberts would have declined to take a position since it could come before the court in the future.

I'm sure you are right about him not answering any questions regarding the 2nd, just wanted to know if they asked him about it. Thanks for the info miele man.

[miele man]

I was wrong. Sen. Feingold raised the issue. Go to:
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485453/posts