Posted on 07/19/2005 4:44:48 PM PDT by freedrudge
Edited on 07/19/2005 4:52:02 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says...
The entire site is disgusting.
To try to equate a lawyers personal views to what cases is an exercise in futility. It is like asking a skunk not to stink. Lawyers take cases and advocate for clients.
"One can hear the Sierra Club members passing out and dropping over on their redwood decks all over California and Oregon.
The sound is a familiar one. It is the same when you drop a real watermelon on the deck."
ROTFLOL! Oh, Gramps...you are too much!
That was funny, I don't care who you are. ;o)
And the kind I like are the ones who don't take cases that pit them directly against private property rights.
I guess for me, the biggest problem w/having to pick a Supreme Court Justice is that that person has to have been a (cough) lawyer.
"W. Definitely stood by his campaign promise on this one"
We sure do appreciate our President after this so much more. He didn't go wishy washy and pick someone the press might praise.
Yes and for the pro-life folks it is R v W that is the overriding concern and for the RKBA folks it is the 2nd amendment stances that is the deal breaker and for the 10th amendment folks it is the states' rights issue and on and on and on. There is no one around that can be the perfect "conservative". Why? Because your stance is in direct conflict with those in business that consider themselves every bit as conservative as you. The social conservatives goals are in direct conflict with the libertarian right and it becomes a circular firing squad.
Agreed. IMO that is one of the most important issues to be considered with this nomination. Since O'Connor voted to dissent, we would actually be going "backwards" on the issue if the nominee isn't firmly on the side of property rights.
The administration's silence after the court ruling says plenty about their opinion of the issue.
Two of the main underpinnings of this republic are property rights and gun rights; undercut them, and lose the rest.
Judge Roberts has a great background; I hope we get a little more insight into his views.
That's all I will say on the matter. You can debate the merits of your obnoxiousness all by yourself.
Good day.
No, I mean we can't build a useful fence along that distance that can't be climbed, tunneled, or otherwise rendered useless. We can't afford to pay enough people to watch that border that way, either.
Did'ja ever drive from Brownsville to El Paso? Now imagine building so much as a barbed wire fence that long. Next, Imagine how many people it would take to watch it. See what I mean?
What I was trying to get across is that while it is physically impossible to close just the Mexican border that way; there has to be another way! I'm open to suggestions ...
I'd have less of a problem w/him being a non-constructionist in this one area (& constructionism is what I'm concerned about, not conservatism) if I knew that he was a constructionist in other important areas. As of now, I've seen no evidence that leads me to believe that.
Define if you can a "constructionist".
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050719085909990001&ncid=NWS00010000000001
Is Judge Roberts a good choice for the Supreme Court?
Yes 47%
No 28%
I don't know enough about him 25%
Total Votes: 120,834
Hopefully, the talk shows will be going over his record w/a fine tooth comb over the next few weeks. Also, hopefully, they'll make the distinction between his govt job vs his private sector work, & especially what opinions he's been credibly quoted as saying outside of work.
Bork himself said he doesn't want the job. He's too old, and he's got health problems of his own.
Janice Rogers-Brown was my guess too before the name John G. Roberts was announced by the media late in the afternoon. I'm happy with the pick.
Although he was appointed in 2003, what the bio fails to note is that he was nominated in 2001. His nomination was in limbo for 2 years by the obstructionist Democrats.
Ive look through you other posts and dug up these nuggets:
How more of a hypocrite can you be you self-righteous jerk who proclaims himself to be above using insults? How come you couldnt make your points without resorting to insults? What a complete and utter idiot you are!
That said, POSSIBLE good news on Second Amendment Grounds.
From the pro-2a High Road website
Today, 04:41 AM #90
countertop
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NoVA and NoGA
Posts: 541
Kim,
Actually, I ought to clarify things a bit.
While Robert's wasn't a judge in the DC Circuits Seegars opinion, he was part of the En Banc panel that denied the petition for rehearing. However, he joined Sentelle and Randloph in dissenting from the denial of rehearing - and thus came down on the side of the 2nd Amendment.
In federal appellate practice - the first appeal beyond the trial court is to a "panel" of the Circuit Court. These panels are usually made up of 3 members of the Court of Appeals who rule on the appeal. Their decision is final in 90+% of appeals, however, as an intermediate step before appealing to the Supreme Court, you can request that the En Banc (or full quorum of judges) Court of Appeals rehear the case. These petitions are rarely granted.
In Seegars - if Triggerfinger is correct (I have no reason to doubt him, he has usually been pretty reliable, but I haven't read the actual denial of petition so can't really comment on it) then he was involved in the Seegars case, just in a very minor role - dissenting along with two other jurists from the decision of the court not to rehear the case.
---------------------------------- While I'd rather have Kozinski, Corrigan, or Alito, I THINK he'll go our way(he is Federalist Society). We'll see. Until I know for sure though, I'll be voting "pass" on this FR poll.
JOHN ROBERTS
Poor Hillary...
Although I'm not a 'strict' constructionist, Wikipedia has a definition of SC that covers the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism
You'll see on that page that Scalia refers to 'reasonable' constructionism or 'originalism'. That is what I agree w/. The easiest example of this for me is saying that the word 'speech' should be interpreted as 'speech', not as 'expression'. 'Speech' is an objectively definable word which simply refers to written or spoken words. 'Expression' is purely subjective. It can include all of the following & more: a book, a song, burning a flag, streaking, flipping someone the bird, etc.
I think the criteria on which a judicial decision is based should always first be the actual wording of the constitution & the founders commonly known original intent in choosing those particular words. Not the 'precedent'-based daisy-chain-to-dictatorship the courts have been following for decades.
It's late & I'm about to go to sleep, so I hope this makes sense. :)
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.