Posted on 09/15/2005 4:11:01 AM PDT by nj26
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s testimony about the existence of a right to privacy, the importance of respecting precedent, and the need for the Constitution to adapt to changing conditions has alarmed some rank-and-file conservatives, who are filling up Internet message boards with predictions that Roberts may turn out to be a moderate justice.
Many say they believe that Roberts's answers have shown him to be to the left of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, whom President Bush promised to use as models in selecting new justices. Some compare Roberts to David Souter and Anthony Kennedy -- Republican appointees who proved to be moderates who supported abortion rights.
One writer on the conservative FreeRepublic.org site wrote that yesterday's questioning by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, had ''exposed Roberts" as a moderate.
''Biden gave Roberts every opportunity to even minimally associate himself with Scalia and Thomas, and he ran away from them like he was running from a burning building -- not a good sign," the post said.
Bush chose Roberts, a highly respected lawyer with a short judicial tenure, over conservative judges with longer track records on issues of importance to conservatives. Still, almost all conservative judicial groups endorsed Roberts, recognizing that his lack of a long judicial record made him less susceptible to liberal attacks.
But the first three days of Roberts's confirmation hearings, during which the nominee has taken pains to portray himself as a cautious moderate, sparked concerns among grass-roots conservatives that Roberts may join a long line of Republican Supreme Court appointees who proved to be more liberal on the bench than the presidents who chose them.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I feel the same way and I'm so pleased that Roberts will be Chief Justice. I think his very presence on the court will have a huge (and good) influence over the liberal justices.
OK, I'm certainly not they only one? Who else has been looking for this quote? Has anybody found it? I just checked the entire 3rd-day live thread and couldn't find the phrase "burning building".
And you're suprised?....I thought not.
"Shumer (if it was him) was trying to get Roberts to say whether he agreed or disagreed with a statement from Thomas, but his use of terms sounded slippery to me, and it got tedious."
Yeah...I can't decide if he is supremely reasonably and brillianty prepared or both of those plus much less conservative than President Bush's base.
But we are bound to find out as there is no reasonable basis for filibustering him and he will surely survive an up or down vote.
No, they're reading FreeRepublic.org, which I've never heard of.
The argument of viability before the third trimester defining personhood is ludicrous. Does an old man with no brain damage lose all his rights because he needs support to live?
Not to mention the age of viability is different now than when Roe was decided. Why doesn't NARAL want the point at which abortion is allowed to be changed in order to be consistent with their argument?
Also notice that the reporter notes that FR is a "site and nota Blog!
Consideing the times that Roberts has been able to interject anything through Biden's and Kennedy's mindless drivel. How can his "testimony" alarm anyone?
Jack.
This entire situation continues to confuse and befuddle me.
It seems from what I heard that Roberts is very bright and quite cagy in parcing his responses, which may not be bad, in light of the demons he is conversing with.
There IS a right to privacy in the Constitution - its in the protection against illegal searches and seizures, but that doesn't necessaarily extend to what some Conservatives dread. Like ALL constitutionla rights, it is subject to interpretation.
While he did say Roe versus Wade is the law of the land and changing prior decisions was not wise, he also said something else about that subject which indicated that prior court decisions were not necessarily written on stone.
I would have preferred a more obvious conservative. But Roberts appears to be able to deal quite well with the collection of losers who are cross-examing him. I think he will turn out all right.
What conservatives should be doing NOW is pressuring the President and their representatives to pressure him, to select a candidate with solidly conservative credentials to succeed O'Connor, and be willing to go to the mats to fight for that candidate, even if it means invoking the "nuclear" option against filibusters.
We deserve a candidate like that on the Supreme Court. That's why Bush was re-elected and why he was given a majority in Congress and we shouldn't settle for anything else next time - ESPECIALLY Bush's amigo Gonzales - a SUPER loser.
FreeRepublic.org is registered to ROBINSON-DEFEHR but it is not setup... probably to keep someone from taking advantage of the name.
"This entire situation continues to confuse and befuddle me."
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
scroll down to "Dems in Destruction"
We are now a bunch of fanatics in pajamas who had the nerve to expose Dan Ratherbiased for the pathetic fraud he is. They are no longer attempting to "spin" us, they are doing everything they can to destroy us.
Encouraging.
"The rpesident knows this, and the president will surely follow with just such a nominee from this list: Judges Garza, Jones, Luttig, McConnell or Owens. "
We can only hope and pray. The specter of Gonzales continues to haunt me.
Never mind---looks like Jim Robinson owns all Freerepublic.(domains)---LOL!
Too bad we can't link them all to here....
Why can't we? Redirecting should be fairly simple if Jim already owns the domains. What am I missing?
Based on some of the concepts I see posted here, that's not necessarily a good thing.
You don't get a vote.
FR is more Republican than it is conservative. JMO.
"You don't get a vote."
Actually I do. Sucks for you, eh?
Actually, unless you are one of the useless Senators, you don't.
And no, it doesn't suck for me if you are a Senator. You couldn't be worse than most, I suppose. Unless you are one of the imbeciles who is a Senator from my state, in which case, it does suck.
I live in a state where all the political parties are equally criminal or incompetent.
Is that a similar site to us, which is FreeRepublic.com.
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.