Jump to content

John Roberts


Jason

Recommended Posts

Excellent choice (on the surface, anyway - Kennedy was supposed to be a conservative when he was appointed). As of now, I like it!

Link: [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/[/url]

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the 109th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Bush’s first nominee for the high court. The president selected a rock-solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation’s highest court.

“One of the most consequential decisions a president makes is his appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court,” Bush said. “He's placing in human hands the power and majesty of the law.”

Bush said the position called for “a person who will faithfully apply the Constitution.”

“I have found such a person in Judge John Roberts. I an nominating him to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court,” Bush said.

“In my meetings with Judge Roberts I have been deeply impressed. ... He has a good heart. He has profound respect for the rule of law. He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench.”

Bush praised “his sound judgment and personal decency.” “He has earned the respect of both political parties,” the president said.

Bush calls for swift confirmation
Bush repeated an earlier request of the Senate Judiciary Committee that his nominee be confirmed in time for the new justice to join the court when it reconvenes in October.

“They share my goals of a dignified confirmation process,” Bush said of the Senate panel. “I have full confidence that the Senate will rise to the occasion and act promptly on his nomination,” Bush said.

Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. ET after a luncheon with the visting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He announced his selection at about 9 p.m. in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation, with Roberts by his side.

Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.

Advocacy groups on the right say that Roberts, a 50-year-old native of Buffalo, N.Y., who attended Harvard Law School, is a bright judge with strong conservative credentials he burnished in the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Reagan. While he has been a federal judge for just a little more than two years, legal experts say that whatever experience he lacks on the bench is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court.

Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women’s reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

“The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution,” the brief said.

Roberts on Roe
In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Bush administration asked television outlets to broadcast the speech live. The president spoke, followed by brief remarks from Roberts. Neither took questions.

Traditionally, even major appointments are made in daytime ceremonies, but the White House decided to go all out for the first Supreme Court nomination since 1994.

The big prime-time splash may also have been an attempt to divert attention from Bush senior aide Karl Rove’s involvement in the CIA leak case that has caused Republicans to worry about Bush’s standing in opinion polls.

Predictions for Bush's first Supreme Court nomination had primarily focused on Judge Edith Brown Clement and Edith Hollan Jones, both of whom serve on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

If confirmed by the Senate, Roberts would replace O’Connor, the first woman appointed to the court, who resigned July 1.

Names of other candidates
Names of potential nominees circulating in Washington were largely women and included: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Judge Karen Williams of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bush said he had considered “a variety of people, people from different walks of life.”

Senate Republican leaders said they had not been given the name by the White House. “Presidents like to be the first to announce presidential appointments,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ken., and the No. 2 Republican leader.

The tension was palpable in the West Wing of the White House; after a day of intense speculation, McClellan walked into the press briefing room and said bluntly: “The president has made a decision and will be announcing his nominee to the Supreme Court at 9 o’clock.” McClellan said the American people expected that the Senate confirmation process would be a dignified one.

Other possible candidates were conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.

Bush had said ever since O’Connor’s announcement that he wanted to move with some speed and that he wanted the new justice to be seated before the court begins its fall term in October.

The dynamic might have changed a bit when Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist last week put out word that he had no intention of stepping down and that he would continue on the court despite his battle with thyroid cancer. Nevertheless, with Congress nearing a summer recess and then a busy September, some time pressure was unavoidable.

Girding for battle
Advocacy groups on the left and the right already are gearing up for a fierce lobbying campaign in advertisements on television, radio, newspapers and the Internet. The battle is expected to cost tens of millions of dollars in spending by private groups.

Bush’s conservative backers were counting on him to select a candidate who would move the court toward the right on such issues as abortion and affirmative action. Democrats in the Senate were prepared to fight any nominee who might undermine past rulings on those and other sensitive subjects.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

i guess nobody cares about a supreme court nominee... i mean, they don't do anything that any of us care about, right :unsure:

on the surface, he is an outstanding nominee... he will go through hell getting confirmed though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 20 2005, 07:34 AM']i guess nobody cares about a supreme court nominee...
[right][post="116361"][/post][/right][/quote]



Not really... :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]He seems like a douche... but they all do except Clarence Thomas (Who although he is more conservative that Adolph, at least sexually harassed that bitch "Who knows she wanted to stiff dark meat")

I am compiling my thoughts on the guy currently... I am sure his opponents are digging through his life... and I bet they find a dead hooker somewhere in there... don't they always finding something with a so called "conservative"[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[img]http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/images/library/images/notgoback.jpg[/img]

[color="red"]this poster sums up how some Womans groups feel about him[/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 20 2005, 08:03 PM'][img]http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/images/library/images/notgoback.jpg[/img]

[color="red"]this poster sums up how some Womans groups feel about him[/color]
[right][post="116655"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[b]MYTH!!![/b]

Ok, it is possible a few women were stupid enough to give themselves coat hanger abortions, but it is largely a myth.

The illegal abortions done before 1973 were mostly done using the same methods and doctors post 1973. And the "thousands" of women who died from "back-alley" abortions is also a myth. The last time there were large numbers of women who died from abortion was in the days before pennicilan.

In 1965 there were 200 deaths related to abortion. In 1969 there were 110. In 1972 there were just over 60. The death rate was declining rapidly before 1973 when abortion was legalized!

Link: [url="http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/trends.pdf"]http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/trends.pdf[/url]

Scroll down to page 3.

And the post Roe deaths from, abortion are not 100% accurate, as many deaths related to botched abortions are not reported as such, but as due to "excessive hemoraging" quite often.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]I like the semi "cross" logo on the Alan Guttmacher report that Jason provided....


as for the Coathanger myth not sure, haven't given much research to it... I was merley providing it as a sign of how some people see him.[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 20 2005, 08:53 PM'][i][b]I like the semi "cross" logo on the Alan Guttmacher report that Jason provided....
as for the Coathanger myth not sure, haven't given much research to it... I was merley providing it as a sign of how some people see him.[/b][/i]
[right][post="116690"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Are you implying that the Guttmacher Institute is a Christian, or religious organization, and therefore pro-life?

If so, you couldn't be further from the truth. The AGI is affiliated with Planned Parenthood. CLOSELY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jul 21 2005, 09:22 AM']Does anybody have any video of Robert's son dancing?  That is some of the funniest footage I've seen in along time.
[right][post="116920"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

yeah it was!! not sure where a video is at of it, though...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jason' date='Jul 21 2005, 08:03 AM']Are you implying that the Guttmacher Institute is a Christian, or religious organization, and therefore pro-life?

If so, you couldn't be further from the truth.  The AGI is affiliated with Planned Parenthood.  CLOSELY.
[right][post="116885"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
He's right here. I couldn't find any dirt on AGI, unlike some of the other sources that have been posted on GENERAL DISCUSSIONS before.

If Ralph Steadman did Pro-Choice posters, that is what they would look like.

The thing about John Roberts is that he is closely allied to the Bush Family. Also, I think Bush has had designs on making him a Justice for a while now, which worries me. If he is a strict constitutionalist, however (which is what they claim he is- a dying breed), he will be alright with me. He is pretty green, however, and hasn't been a judge of any kind for too long.
Roe v. Wade was put into law about 30 years ago and is as untouchable as segregation laws put in place in the 60's, as far as I'm concerned (and so far as he should be concerned as a "conservative")

I don't really have many major problems with good "conservatives," except for their positions on foreign policy and the Laissez-Faire bull they throw around from time to time. They should be, by nature, neutral people. It's these idiots who want to screw up American Life in General and make it a Church-Country that infuriate me.

If they do mess with Roe v. Wade, however, we will have a civil war (and deservedly so)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]Few things:

- Bush claims that he didn't ask him about Abortion in private conversations = Total Bullshit Lie !!!!

- I don't like that Roberts Went to Harvard, then Harvard Law, then clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, etc etc He has been in elitist power positions his whole life, how bout someone who understands common people???

- SHould have been a woman, to only have 1 woman out of 9 is a joke[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
IF (huge if) roe v. wade was overturned, it would only turn the decisions over to the states... imho, this is the way it should be... if the majority of people in kentucky don't agree w/ it, why should we fund it... on the flip side, if the majority in california does agree w/ it, why shouldn't they be allowed...

if roe v. wade was overturned, it would be a good day in american history imo... and that isn't my religion talking... i think that the choice should be there for those that want it, but if you live in a state that 80% are against it, why should we pitch in for others to do something that we feel is wrong? like i said, not necessarily religiously... people that are against abortion believe they are a living being and don't deserve to be killed... imagine having to chip in your hard earned tax money, to help pay for something that you absolutely oppose...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 21 2005, 05:58 PM']IF (huge if) roe v. wade was overturned, it would only turn the decisions over to the states... imho, this is the way it should be... if the majority of people in kentucky don't agree w/ it, why should we fund it... on the flip side, if the majority in california does agree w/ it, why shouldn't they be allowed...

if roe v. wade was overturned, it would be a good day in american history imo... and that isn't my religion talking... i think that the choice should be there for those that want it, but if you live in a state that 80% are against it, why should we pitch in for others to do something that we feel is wrong? like i said, not necessarily religiously... people that are against abortion believe they are a living being and don't deserve to be killed... imagine having to chip in your hard earned tax money, to help pay for something that you absolutely oppose...
[right][post="117236"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Rick, Abortion isnt federally funded, ask any Military Doctor if they can preform them. The anwser is no.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]Yeah Rick I don't understand your argument... no Fed $ is spent on Abortions .... ????

also allowin certain states would only hurt the poorer mothers who can't afford to travel to the Northeast that live in Alabama.... the wealthier girls who can afford to travel would then have the ability to abort like old.... but the poorer mothers (who most likely need an abortion based on lack of $ to feed the kid) won't be able to get one[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 21 2005, 06:18 PM'][i][b]Yeah Rick I don't understand your argument... no Fed $ is spent on Abortions .... ????

[color="blue"]also allowin certain states would only hurt the poorer mothers who can't afford to travel to the Northeast that live in Alabama.... the wealthier girls who can afford to travel would then have the ability to abort like old.... but the poorer mothers (who most likely need an abortion based on lack of $ to feed the kid) won't be able to get one[/color][/b][/i]
[right][post="117241"][/post][/right][/quote]


uhm where are they getting the money for them now? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]uhm where are they getting the money for them now?[/quote]

[i][b]who knows the point is then you have to have the 500 $ for the abortion and the 400$ for the plane ticket or 100$ for the greyhound etc [/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengaljet
Let's say Roe V Wade is overturned. My ? is how are the unwanted(by parents) going to be raised? Not all will be adopted,where does the $$ come from to take care of them?
Everyone will have to pay higher taxes to support IMO. Is that fair to ones that have raised their own,ones that have chosen not to have children and now are taxed? Will Churches be willing to have their tax-free $$ taxed(is that fair)?
Where's the money come from? How is it going to be done?
Do you want to pay for someone elses lack of responsibility all of your life,your kids life?
The $$ has to come from somewhere-higher taxes is all that I can think to cover or will we use the trickle down theory?
Just tell me how it is going to be paid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus

[i]BengalJet... you just put forth a Brilliant Idea...

If Chruches want to Overturn Roe Vs Wade... they should have to sign an agreement forgoing their tax exempt status... then we will take that $ that they will now be taxed... Hundreds of Billions... and use that to help pay for children whose mothers don't have enough to support them

I wonder how many Churches would sign up ??? <_<
[/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengaljet' date='Jul 21 2005, 07:21 PM']Let's say Roe V Wade is overturned. My ? is how are the unwanted(by parents) going to be raised? [b]Not all will be adopted[/b],where does the $$ come from to take care of them?
Everyone will have to pay higher taxes to support IMO. Is that fair to ones that have raised their own,ones that have chosen not to have children and now are taxed? Will Churches be willing to have their tax-free $$ taxed(is that fair)?
Where's the money come from? How is it going to be done?
  Do you want to pay for someone elses lack of responsibility all of your life,your kids life?
The $$ has to come from somewhere-higher taxes is all that I can think to cover or will we use the trickle down theory?
Just tell me how it is going to be paid.
[right][post="117263"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

There is a waiting list to adopt an American infant long enough that, for the first couple of years anyway, [b]EVERY SINGLE BABY THAT WILL BE ABORTED IN THE USA WOULD GET ADOPTED.[/b] Therefore the rest of your financial arguements are moot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[b]Let me point you towards the brilliant -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), and an excerpt from her lecture from taxation on church property, c. 1877[/b]


[i]“For years many a thinking people have had gloomy forebodings as to the result of the immense power of the church in our political affairs. . . . And the first step in the disestablishment of the church & of all churches is the taxation of church property. The government has no right to tax infidels for everything that takes the name of religion. For every dollar of church property untaxed, all other properties must be taxed one dollar more, and thus the poor man's home bears the burden of maintaining costly edifices from which he & his family are as effectively excluded--as though a policeman stood to bar their entrance, and in smaller towns all sects are building, building, building, not a little town in the western prairies but has its three & four churches & this immense accumulation of wealth is all exempt from taxation. In the new world as well as the old these rich ecclesiastical corporations are a heavy load on the shoulders of the people, for what wealth escapes, the laboring masses are compelled to meet. If all the church property in this country were taxed, in the same ratio poor widows are to day, we could soon roll off the national debt. . . .”[/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...