I must disagree with Ann on this. This guy may have a limited record on the court, but has still been solid. He also has a long history of working on Conservative cases. Bush has privately interviewed the guy and trusts him. This guy is no Souter, and looks very much like a Scalia in adhereing to the Constitution. There are some question marks, but I am very confortable with the choice.
Bush has privately interviewed the guy and trusts him<<<
Bush is the President, he gets to choose. As long as he's not rolling over like a yellow dog to please democrats, I'm happy.
I don't know Roberts..never heard of him, but I do not doubt that Bush is rolling over like a yellow dog to the dems..it is his M.O. after all...
This is true. It was a tactical error on the part of Republicans, and a predictable one given the character of the leaders of our party. Republicans are much more secure in arguing about procedure, decorum and tradition than they are ideology. Most voters don't know what a filibuster even is, much less why they should be concerned about the breach of a hoary old Senate tradition that 95% of voters could not care less about.
On the other hand, it probably makes sense to most voters that Senators would ask a judge about his beliefs, since they are public officials. I realize this breaks the rules of the legal profession, but most people just consider that "lawyer talk" and ignore it. That's why Democrats haven't paid a price for applying an "ideological litmus test." They have failed in trying to prove to America that Bush's nominees are wild-eyed fanatics.
(Bush has privately interviewed the guy and trusts him.)
He also looked into the eyes of Putin and trusted him. It is arrogant of a person to think that they know what's in a person's soul. I prefer hard evidence that is ample in judger Brown's case. Why didn't Bush nominate her? She would have destroyed what remains of the Democrat party. I don't see much hard evidence in this case.
"This guy", also thinks America is a democracy.. and a Constitutional Democracy at that <- own words.. on TV yet right after Bush got off the podium..
{snip} A Supreme that thinks the U.S. is a democracy, a Consitutiional democracy.?..
Could be BUSH thinks the same thing.. The Roberts nomination calls BUSHS' qualifications into question more than it does Roberts'.. Maybe, Bush don't ONLY resemble Alfred E. Neuman he is the reality of the cartoon character.. and is trying desperately to PROVE IT..
No wonder Ann Coulter is fit to be tied.. I don't blame her a bit..
Bush just out'ed himself, this time.. She didn't attack Bush directly but should.. Ann Coulter is the leanest meanest RINO Exposer of all time.. They cannot help themselves.. I'm, Watching this thread, closely.. The RINOS will LOVE Roberts... he's one of them..
Quote: Bush has privately interviewed the guy and trusts him.
Yeah I personally voted for Bush and trusted him but got instead lax borders, R/X 550billion for seniors and one of the biggest spenders of all time.
Roberts wife is the former president of Femminists for Life. You can bet there is no way this man is a Souter.
Look, there is nothing anywhere to be found in his record that this guy is either solid or has a record like a Scalia in "adhereing [sic] to the Constitution" in any way I think important.
On the narrow issue of Roe v. Wade, I think it is a completely defensible proposition that in a free country, everyone, including women, have a constitutional right to be secure from invasion by government of their right to management of their body. So you might well uphold the right to privacy foundation of the decision and say but what about the right of the baby to be free from deprivation of its "life without due process of law"--an issue on which Mr. Roberts has never really said anything.
As to the rest of this, Roberts is a very very smart guy who has managed to leave no real footprints on the substance of any issue--exactly like Souter; a guy who has been campaigning for a Supreme Court appointment all his life. Under circumstances where we have enough political muscle to appoint any one of four or five choices who are clearly hard core on every single one of the issues that count.
In a business in which contention is the principal activity, whether in court or in negotiations or in just about every other daily activity, it is very suprising the extent to which lawyers, in their everyday business existence absolutly shun controversy. The name of the game is "collegial"--go along; avoid arguments. Partner's meetings in large law firms are picnics just like Board of Director's meetings in large public companies, called for the purpose of rubber stamping the Management Committee's decisions.
And most of the time, when judges get on the panel courts, the drift of their decision making is toward the noncontroversal center. I want a Supreme Court justice committed to reversal of the "switch in time that saved nine"--we have purportedly paid the price of saving nine at the ballot box--no need to provide more switchers. My rights under the Second Amendment include not only my AK-47 but all four of my bazookas and my RPG launcher. And notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court decision, I still think my private property can be taken by government only for public use.
This guy has no record of any personal commitment contrary to the two party common line on any of these things.
This guy is going to get confirmed and he is a lousy choice--I hope the Dems can come up with a long history of smoking dope between oral arguments.