Not this crap again!!!
I don't think that Roberts is a betrayal of "pro-life" groups. He made his acceptance of "privacy rights" by pointing out the specific type of privacy rights the constitution mentions - freedom of speech, searches and seizures, etc. He indicated that precedent should be given proper weight but he did not say how you decide how much weight is proper in any given circumstance. I think he will do fine.
All we need is a Supreme Court to kick the issue of abortion back out to the state legislatures. We don't need the Supreme Court to do anything more than that.
A shift in the courts to a non-ideological but conservatively constitutionalist philosophy is the best thing that can happen to our courts. The courts should be non-ideological in its application of the law.
Justice should be blind.
I am no more in favor of "right wing" judicial activism than I am of left wing judicial activism. The place to right all wrongs, be it Roe v Wade or some other atrocity is with a Constitutional Amendment. And so long as a prospective justice is not a Bader Ginsburg or a Souter, I don't care what "suspicions" you 700 Club snake handlers have about them.
Not if he decides that the Constitution should apply to the unborn, isn't that the point? Is it a lump of tissue or a baby? Time will tell. I think we know the answer.
The Prez will appoint another conservative, he has done what he said he would do as much as he's been able to.
Prior, Brown, and Owens are sitting on the Appeals courts, that's a pretty good indication to me. Priscilla Ownes is the latest rumor. Would she pass your litmus test?
I pray Roberts is not a betrayal! Could get very nasty for the GOP if he is.
You don't speak for me, Cindy or Andrew. MYOB.
Thankfully, President Bush will ignore disrespectful twits who frequent internet sites just to call him names, as if they were big somebodies when they're not, and make his decisions on criteria that have long been established.
You are correct. Bush/Rove got lucky in 2000. And a real conservative would've stomped the guts out of a left-winger like Kerry. "Compassionate" conservatives on the other hand will always win in a squeaker if at all.
Not Roberts nor any serious candidate for the SCOTUS should EVER tip his hand on subject matter likely to come before the court. To do so might well put him or her in the position of having to recuse himself or herself from the actual case(s) that would be heard to decide such issues. It is not by accident that the Democrats are trying to get Roberts to go on record on these matters because they hope to have him remove himself from the cases.
This is a high-stakes poker game and the Dems just folded. Another hand is being dealt and the likelihood of success is not helped by the carping of amateurs who don't know the rules but like to hear themselves braying.
OK where is the MSM charging that there is anti-hispanic sentiment behind the opposition ot Gonzales and question whether the lib author is biased against hispanics. Waiting--Waiting--
Bushie? You sound like a DU'er.
I wonder exactly how one would go about doing that.
The guy who wrote this opinion piece does not know what he is talking about. First off if the experts can not seem to determine how Roberts will vote on issues I can not understand how this guy could. Roberts views on so many subjects are a mystery to me and I watched or listened to most of those hearings.
Next my own opinion is that Roberts was totally vetted before he was chosen. In my own opinion the religious right want the same kind of judicial activism from the right that the leftists want from the other side. So if they are angry, just like we know the liberals are also angry-its a good thing. An originalist showers disdain over "movements" in general, because movements on the left and right of the political spectrum come and go over the long years, but the consititution stays whole.
Christians have to remember, and I hope W does, RvW represents the epitome of liberal judicial thinking, and total scorn for our Constitution. RvW is a blot on our country in so many profound ways.
I do not have the faith in Roberts other conservatives have. For one thing, look at how W refused to fight for his outstanding judicial nominees. No one ever comments on the disgraceful silence of W during the years they were being trashed, and it has all the looks of W throwing a sop to conservatives, with no intention of honorably fighting for them, and every intention of getting political credit for an empty gesture.
Whatever W is, and I really don't know, he is not a conservative. Least of all in his conduct toward the judiciary. Once more, I dread, we will have another Republican squash the hopes of those who want to see an honest, American judiciary.