Posted on 08/11/2005 11:56:51 AM PDT by hinterlander
Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, while serving as the head of Hogan & Hartson’s appellate division, spent about a dozen hours working on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group in a case before the Supreme Court in 1999, his former colleague told HUMAN EVENTS.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
I'm Sure and CERTAIN you would like having your typing corrected in the same manner, right?
I'm sure you'd love it when every time I run across you, I find something in your post to lambaste.
If you wouldn't want it done to you, I suggest you stop.
Haven't I said this to you already?
I appreciate your comments, but I think you're missing the point.
And what point would that be m'dear?
That you're stalking someone and harassing them?
All one has to do is look in your history and see who you've been snarking at.
Cease it immediately.
"Its laughable to hear people on "Fox News" and other places say "well, at least this shows his personal opinions dont effect his rullings." Yah, he drops his conservative concince at the door."
It's not his job to apply his conscience to disputes over which he has judicial authority. It's his job to apply the law. His personal opinions on a matter should have no bearing on his judicial philosophy, which is the only philosophy we should be concerned about.
"Just more evidence that there is actually NOTHING that indicates this man will be another Scalia when on the court."
Absurd hyperbole. There is plenty to indicate that he has a strict constructionist philosophy. You're just ignoring it.
"WHAT?!?!? Yes he does. Bush promised us another Scalia/Thomas."
Well, since Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides in this case, what are we to do? Which one is more in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, Scalia or Thomas? Whichever one's wrong though we'd better get rid of him, because he must be turning into another Souter!
Y"ou don't want a moral judge, huh?"
No, at least not in the sense, you're describing. It's not the judges job to impose his morality, it's Congress's. Either they have the power to undertake an act, or they don't. That should be the judge's only role in a case like this. It's not his responsibility to decide whether an act is "wise" or "good" or "moral." It's only his job to say whether it's constitutional.
Here we go again. I've heard this from Roberts supporters about 12 times. No evidence is ever provided.
But I'll try again. What specific evidence am I "ignoring" that indicates Roberts is going to be another Scalia?
Maybe, Coulter missed it. I sure did.
Just more of the kind of stuff the GOP and self-styled Christians stand for these days.
"What specific evidence am I "ignoring" that indicates Roberts is going to be another Scalia?"
Start with the french fry case. Then go to the California toad case. Those were "constitutionalist" decisions. I feel very confident that Justice Scalia would have decided the same. And this is just off the top of my head.
Now what judicial opinions issued by Judge Roberts have you so worried?
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.