Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confirm John Roberts(Washington Post Editorial Endorses Judge Roberts)
washingtonpost.com ^ | Sept 18 2006

Posted on 09/17/2005 8:02:31 PM PDT by Dog

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chiefjustice; endorsement; johnroberts; scotus; wp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last
To: FreeReign

"A Souter-like nomination would hurt the R party, encourage a conservative third party and most like hand the White House over the Dem's in 2008."

Truer words were never spoken.

A Supreme Court Chief Justice in the Souter mold will turn Buhs's legacy into garbage and destroy the Republican Party - which is already rent by serious internal divisions.


81 posted on 09/18/2005 1:25:28 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
FWIW, I think they're just keeping their powder dry 'til the next one comes up.

That is absolutely correct.

82 posted on 09/18/2005 1:32:46 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
I think its even more basic then that.

The Washington Post is trying to save the Democrats from themselves. They are watching their side make total asses of themselves as they badger and obviously over qualified candidate

This is hurting the Democrats, the Washington Post doesn't like it, and thus is trying to throw the towel in before the guy wearing the pink trunks gets punched into a coma.

"Cut me Mick! Cut me!"
83 posted on 09/18/2005 3:08:47 AM PDT by baystaterebel (F/8 and be there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
Do you really believe they are for Roberts?

Well, I don't. I have never seen such faint praise as this. What a bunch of drama queens! Can they make a bigger show of holding their nose?

I urge everyone to read the whole article. If this is an endorsement, I'd hate to see their thumbs-down.

Grrrrr....

84 posted on 09/18/2005 3:22:28 AM PDT by Watery Tart ("First, New Orleans Mayor Ray Naga… Nogg… Nagg… Not gonna work here anymore, anyway!" ~~Bob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Roberts is NO SOUTER.

How would we know?

Didn't Souter APPEAR to be a constructionist at the time of his nomination?

While most of us are optimistic about Roberts (including me), much of that optimism is based on hope and faith more than on fact. Facts are sparse at the moment, or they would have been drawn out at the hearings.

85 posted on 09/18/2005 6:42:17 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with really stupid enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Why the Republican Party has to stealth nominate candidates is beyond me. Why not just put a real conservative out there and fight the fight. We have no idea what Robert's stands for. Like someone else said earlier - we have to rely on "faith" since there is nothing to tell us otherwise.

I don't have a good feeling. Hope I am proved wrong.


86 posted on 09/18/2005 7:16:03 AM PDT by commonguymd (My impatience is far more advanced than any known technology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
This is not intended to upset liberals, it is intended to upset conservatives.

Well it works. When WP endorses anything I usually run the other way. FAST.

87 posted on 09/18/2005 8:01:14 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Divide the Republican base

Bush needs no help with this one. He's doing fine on his own...(Ducking to avoid the BushBots)

88 posted on 09/18/2005 8:06:23 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables
Well it works. When WP endorses anything I usually run the other way. FAST.

You are not supposed to believe anything they write whether you agree with it or not.

89 posted on 09/18/2005 9:00:27 AM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
I know but when it comes to Roberts it's not clear what to believe. Too much is riding on an unknown and we deserve better than that. We'll know if we have been screwed soon enough but by then it will be too late to do anything about it. We simply cannot bear 30 years of another Souter on the court. This year's calendar will be a good indicator as well as the next nominee presuming he doesn't nominate another ghost, but I will bet money he does. (I take comfort in the fact that Bloomberg (NYC abortion mayor) is oppose to the confirmation of Roberts but that is small comfort.)
90 posted on 09/18/2005 10:22:04 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables
Too much is riding on an unknown and we deserve better than that.

UNKNOWN??? Where have you been? He is very well known, very conservative and very stable.

91 posted on 09/18/2005 1:01:02 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

I've been right here. He is not a known quantity and to pretend otherwise is the trap. You do not know his position on Roe, 2nd Amendment, Commerce Clause, Church and State, etc. He simply has not written his own opinions or ruled as a judge on those issues. He is a blank slate of personal judicial views and that should worry thoughtful people.. He has caveat"ed" every statement he made on Judicial restraint and the fixed nature of the Constitution. The only encouraging position he has taken was his analogy that judges should be unpires not pitchers or batters but noticably missing is where the judiciary fits when writing the rule book. We will see. I hope his champions are right but BushBots will get to eat their boots if they are wrong and that will be getting off easy. He is clearly smart enough to fence with the Democrats, why not us? It is clear he's smarter than Souter and you all thought you knew where Souter would come down and you were wrong big time.


92 posted on 09/19/2005 5:39:12 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables
I hope his champions are right but BushBots...

I simply cannot respond to all the ignorance of the Judiciary and John Glover Roberts, Jr. espoused in your response.

But I should have know this when I saw the word, "BushBots."

93 posted on 09/19/2005 9:40:59 AM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
BushBot: one who impugns the intelligence of those who disagree with them on subjects relating to the presumption that the President is infallible...if the shoe fits....You know no more about Roberts (or the judiciary) than I do I'll wager and if you have specific knowledge of his positions on those subjects, share you wisdom with us. My only position on Roberts is no one can be sure of his positions and that is dangerous. If he turns out well, great. If not will you come back and tell us all why?
94 posted on 09/19/2005 10:00:02 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables
My only position on Roberts is no one can be sure of his positions and that is dangerous.

While he may be an unknown quantity to YOU, he is not to people who have taken a little time to research him.
I have listened to the Audio recordings of his Supreme Court Arguments.
I have read articles and seen interviews by people who have known and worked with him for almost three decades.
I have read many of his 50 positions as a Federal Appellate Judge on the Fifth Circuit.
I have researched his wife's involvement in conservative causes including "Feminists for Life" of which she was a Board Member and is now legal counsel.
I have looked at his record at Harvard and his advanced study programs in High School.
I read some of the papers released from his time working for the REAGAN and BUSH I administrations.
I have watched the Confirmation hearing three times.

Is this how a "BushBot" operates?

The reason it is ignorant to use the word "BushBot" to describe someone with whom you disagree is because you have no idea what resources I used to come to my conclusion that John Glover Roberts, Jr. will be the best thing to happen to the Supreme Court in a very long time. I would like to add one last thing.

When William Rehnquist was asked a few years ago a series of questions like, "Who is the best practitioner before the Supreme Court" and "Who is the best appellate attorney in the United States," his response was to chuckle and say, "Well, that would certainly have to be Mr. Roberts."

95 posted on 09/19/2005 10:52:18 AM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
"Trying" to play chess, where trying is the operative word. They may be pulling back from Bush, but once again they are setting themselves up for the embarrassment of a smothered mate.

The major chess problem with the Democrats is that they are so interested in attacking the Republicans, that they bring out their Queen immediately every time. Otherwise known as the big mistake 101 of novice chess players. This leads to one of two conditions:

1) The Queen is captured early in the game.

2) The Queen is immobilized and the minor pieces end-run and checkmate the King.

Bush's tactic is to offer a hanging piece which always turns out to be an extremely subtle positional sacrifice. The Dems can never figure out how, in all the games they have played, always end up ahead in material but still lose. If they ever want to start winning again, they need to finally start to realize it's time to suck up your ego and correct your past mistakes with a critical eye. Since this can never occur, they just try to open faster and faster (Immediate howling after Katrina for instance) and break against the shores of Bush's Caro-Kann or Dragon Sicilian.
96 posted on 09/19/2005 11:08:25 AM PDT by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

I'm really not interested in his ability to practice before the court. How he will vote on the court is of primary interest. As for your resources, How is it you assume someone who disagrees with you has not used equivalent resources or has not done their own research?. Hey, you are free to your opinion. I hope you are right. If you are not we all will suffer and you are invited back to explain why your perfect sight just didn't work out this time and gee you sure are sorry we will have to deal with him for the next 30 years. If you have done your research as you said you will find no specifics on how he will vote on the subjects I mentioned earlier. I'm not interesting in an ongoing p$ssing match with you. But I am entitled to my opinion and there are too damn many folks in the BushBot camp who would rather insult or call someone ignorant instead of reasoning rationally. Like I said, If the shoe fits. Please....why not quote some of his judicial rulings or public writings (not advocate positions) that support your view. I can't find any that alleviate my concerns. Help reduce my ignorance.......and tell me you didn't support the Souter nomination because your research determined he was a shadow liberal.


97 posted on 09/19/2005 12:10:56 PM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables
Help reduce my ignorance.......and tell me you didn't support the Souter nomination because your research determined he was a shadow liberal

I didn't support Souter because I was not involved in Politics when he was nominated -- too young.
How can you believe John Roberts, who has been more thoroughly vetted and probed and invaded then the other 8 justices combined, can be so solidly conservative for so long is going to suddenly become something that Souter was ALL ALONG.
Souter was never a very strong conservative, the Administration believed Sununu when they should have done more of their own research.

Do you think an intellectual powerhouse like John Roberts is going to be swayed by the likes of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy or Steven Breyer? No way.

Also, do you Karl Rove is going to advise the President to nominate someone who is not Conservative?

Last thing.
George W. Bush is a far better President, much more conservative and far more politically savvy than his father. He also has learned from the flaws and failures of his father's Presidency, most especially the Souter nomination.

98 posted on 09/19/2005 12:29:55 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Dog

This is such an easy set up - let Roberts through so the left can oppose the next nominee by comparing her/him to Roberts. Roberts will go down as the toughest act to follow as far as nominees go.


99 posted on 09/19/2005 12:38:47 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

too young...oh my..see ya.


100 posted on 09/19/2005 2:05:34 PM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson