John Roberts

[beastieangel01]

yeeeeeaaaah. ahem. :/

your thoughts?

[ToucanSpam]

:confused:

[beastieangel01]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050720/cm_thenation/47318/nc:742)

[ToucanSpam]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050720/cm_thenation/47318/nc:742)
*laughs nervously*

[cosmo105]

yikes. *packs bags*

[RobMoney]

In the past weeks, Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court—someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But last night, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to fill her post on the Supreme Court.

We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

Join our urgent petition to let our senators know we expect them to oppose John Roberts right now at:

http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-6312019-7g0Yz5wPdd.2pO1yb3Jstg&t=3

This is one of the most important domestic fights of President Bush's career. We can win—Americans overwhelmingly want a moderate judge. But to win, we need to get the word out early that Roberts is out of the mainstream.

After you've signed, please send this message on to your friends and colleagues. We need to fight back against the misinformation that the Bush administration is putting out.

John Roberts has little experience as a judge—he was only appointed in 2003. But he's got a lot of experience as a corporate lobbyist and lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular Americans.

Here's a list of some of the things that make Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:

Wrong on environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.

Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Wrong on human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.

Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.

Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.

President Bush could have chosen many fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, he chose a corporate partisan loved by Bush's right-wing base but out of step with the rest of the country.

Tell your senators they need to stop John Roberts now, at:

http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-6312019-7g0Yz5wPdd.2pO1yb3Jstg&t=4

We'll be in touch soon about next steps. For now, please help us gather as many voices as possible to keep the Supreme Court fair. And thanks for everything you're doing.

[Medellia]

yikes. *packs bags*
Yeah. *starts looking for jobs in London*

[Medellia]

Roberts promised to up hold the written law. (Somthing many judges won't do)
They all say that! Doesn't mean they actually will.

[cosmo105]

hah. christian news network. religion only applies to a single person. it doesn't apply to other facets of society, especially government.

[Documad]

Roberts promised to up hold the written law. (Somthing many judges won't do)
This is a meaningless sentence. Judges all uphold the written law. I don't know of any unwritten laws. We don't keep them on audiotapes. It's all in how you INTERPRET the written law.

But when he was pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the subject, he said, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land…There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
When he was a lower court judge he DID have to follow Roe v. Wade. When he's on the US Supreme Court he won't have to.

I know a trial court judge who is anti-choice but who routinely gives underage girls permission to have an abortion without parental consent because that's what the higher courts said was the law. If she were on the US Supreme Court, I'm pretty sure she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.


Frankly, I'm beginning to care very little about this subject. It's too little too late now. This has been coming since I was in college in the early 80s. We all knew this was at stake when we voted in 2004. Most people couldn't be bothered. We got what we deserve.

[SobaViolence]

it's darkest before the light.

[Documad]

Well, the Nevada Supreme Court held that there was "primacy" in their state constitution to fund education and that the 2/3 majority for a tax bill was a "procedural issue" -- effectively shredding their state constitution.
Hey, give me the citation for that case and when I have time I'll look it up and read it. I might be able to find it without your help but I'd like to be sure I'm reading the case you're talking about. Even if you just have the title and year in came out it would help. Thanks.

[Documad]

That long article just above is from the website of a group called "The Law Enforcement Alliance of America". The site says:

(LEAA) is the nation's largest non-profit, non-partisan coalition of law enforcement professionals, crime victims, and concerned citizens united for justice. With a major focus on public education, LEAA is dedicated to providing hard facts and real-world insights into the world of law enforcement and the battle against violent crime. LEAA fights at every level of government for legislation that reduces violent crime while preserving the rights of honest citizens, particularly the right of self-defense.
With this goal in mind, LEAA is dedicated to :

* focus the political debate on criminal behavior and criminal punishment
*
* communicate the shared opinion of the majority of law enforcement officers that gun control is not an effective method of crime control
*
* supporting legislation that helps target and punish criminals and protects law enforcement
*
* providing critical information essential to law enforcement agencies, such as breaking the news on the attempted Federal takeover of state and local police departments.


Anyone ever heard of them? I haven't, and I worked in the field for over a decade. My senile elderly mom gets hit up by these kinds of groups all the time. She thinks she's giving money to widows of police officers but she's really giving money to sponser nutty bullshit like this. :mad: :mad: :mad: I took away her checkbook but she still finds a way sometimes. :rolleyes:



If you read that article, NOTICE THAT THE AUTHOR SEEMS TO BE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC COURT CASES YET HE DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE COURT SAID AND WHY. Thanks.

Oh, and if anyone knows the name and year of the case where a Clinton judge said that drunks couldn't be ordered to AA I'd like to see it. The only thing that makes sense to me is that the AA program insisted on a belief in a higher power and it would violate an athiest's First Amendment rights so a therapy substitute was called for but I'd love to see the real answer. :D

[Documad]

it's darkest before the light.
but we keep walking further into the cave, so we're never going to see the sun when it rises :)

[yeahwho]

The guy's a loony douchebag and a tool of the State, but that's irrelevant. Let's face it, his nomination isn't about the court. Bush said it was going to take him a month to decide on a nominee. He pulled this guy out of thin air to distract from the fact his Chief Advisor is a traitor, and the press corps is getting aggressive because they saw one of their own to go to jail over it.

I'm surprised he didn't put him in a fucking gorilla suit, and direct the press to "Look at the monkey! Look at the funny monkey!"

[Documad]

^^ ah, that's an interesting new perspective. :)

[QueenAdrock]

Frankly, I'm beginning to care very little about this subject. It's too little too late now. This has been coming since I was in college in the early 80s. We all knew this was at stake when we voted in 2004. Most people couldn't be bothered. We got what we deserve.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Anyone Bush nominates is going to be a douchebag. And the way I view it, I'll still pay $600 for a ticket to Europe and $200 for an abortion. $1,000 isn't that much to pay, considering. People who still want to have choice can find it other places. Either that, or they'll have the baby and throw it in a dumpster. Oh, well. Too bad for Christians.

[marsdaddy]

I heard a dem and a repub member of the confirmation committee discussing Roberts on NPR. Obviously, they have a difference of opinion on the guy. The interesting part is the dem said Roberts was not discussed among the committee before being nominated, something Clinton did with his two appointments and Bush Sr. did with his. In other words, the first the dems heard of Roberts was at the press conference. Should make for an interesting (re: contentious) confirmation hearing.

Still, he'll probably be confirmed. And Roe v. Wade, privacy laws, and corporate governance will all take hits.

[Documad]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Anyone Bush nominates is going to be a douchebag. And the way I view it, I'll still pay $600 for a ticket to Europe and $200 for an abortion. $1,000 isn't that much to pay, considering. People who still want to have choice can find it other places. Either that, or they'll have the baby and throw it in a dumpster. Oh, well. Too bad for Christians.
I found out recently that a beloved female family member had an abortion in Mexico pre Roe v. Wade. That brought it home for me.

In other words, the first the dems heard of Roberts was at the press conference. Should make for an interesting (re: contentious) confirmation hearing.
That supports yeahwho's theory. If they throw this guy to the wolves knowing there will be a huge fight they win either way. They get their nut in or they distract everyone. And if it's a horrible fight and he goes down, Bush is almost guaranteed to get his next, presumably nuttier candidate because they can't fight him on every one.

If I had been Clinton, I would have shoved one healthy young left wing candidate after another at them until they had to take someone. Instead he picked old moderates.

[EN[i]GMA]

Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Whipping out my handy pocket Constitution, I see that Congress actually has the power to do this.

Strike one for Mr. Whateverthefuckhisnamehis


Wrong on human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.

He's actually right on this one.

Read the Geneva Conventions. Soldiers that are not uniformed do not apply to any of the rules.


Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.

Horrible.

Keep that trash out of our schools.


Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.

I agree with him here.

I think abortion should be legal, but I disagree with how it was done. A law should be passed.

One more thing. He wants to overturn the interpretation of the commerce clause, something I absolutely agree with, though something you probably hate.

[adam_f]

Oh, this was a brilliant choice. Maybe when Rehnquist retires they'll get John Q. Public.

[Jasonik]

Excerpts from 2003 hearings

Originally published July 21, 2005 (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.hearingexcerpts21jul21,1,6396495.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines)

Excerpts from responses by current Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. to the Senate Judiciary Committee at hearings in 2003 as it considered his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

"I don't know if that's a flaw for a judicial nominee or not, not to have a comprehensive philosophy about constitutional interpretation, to be able to say, 'I'm an originalist,' 'I'm a textualist,' 'I'm a literalist,' or this or that. I just don't feel comfortable with any of those particular labels. ... I'll be bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent, regardless of what type of constructionist I, personally, might be."

- Roberts, April 2003

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat: "Was Brown v. Board [of Education of Topeka, Kan.] an instance of judicial activism?"

Roberts: "The court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism, because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."

Schumer: "How about Roe v. Wade?"

Roberts: "Roe v. Wade is an interpretation of the court's prior precedents. ... The court explained in its opinion the legal basis, and because the court has done that, I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize it as judicial activism. The dissent certainly thought it was and explained why, but the court has explained what it saw as the constitutional basis for its decision."

- April 2003

"I do not believe it is proper to infer a lawyer's personal views from the position taken on behalf of a client. Roe is binding precedent and, if I were confirmed as circuit judge, I would be bound to follow it. Nothing in my personal views would prevent me from doing so."

- Roberts, in a written response to questions from Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat

"It's certainly appropriate and healthy to scrutinize and, when appropriate, to criticize the Supreme Court's decisions. But I don't think it's appropriate to criticize a lawyer for making an argument that the Supreme Court accepts. That's the lawyer's job, and he wouldn't be doing his job if he hadn't made that argument."

- Roberts, January 2003

"There's no role for advocacy with respect to personal beliefs or views on the part of a judge. The judge is bound to follow Supreme Court precedent, whether he agrees with it or disagrees with it, and bound to apply the rule of law in cases whether there's applicable Supreme Court precedent or not. Personal views, personal ideology, those have no role to play whatsoever."

- Roberts, January 2003

"My practice has not been ideological in any sense. My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative across the board. I have argued in favor of environmental restrictions and against takings claims. I've argued in favor of affirmative action. I've argued in favor of prisoners' rights. ... I've argued in favor or antitrust enforcement. ... I've represented defendants charged with anti-trust cases. I've argued cases against affirmative action. And what I've been able to do in each of those cases is set aside any personal views and discharge the professional obligation of an advocate."

- Roberts, April 2003

[Documad]

Roberts promised to up hold the written law. (Somthing many judges won't do)
The more I think about it, the sillier this sounds. I can't remember ever hearing a judge say he/she WOULDN'T uphold the law.


Jasonik's post above where this judge says that as a lawyer he has to argue things he wouldn't want as public policy or judicial policy is absolutely true.

John Roberts has little experience as a judge—he was only appointed in 2003. But he's got a lot of experience as a corporate lobbyist and lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular Americans.

Here's a list of some of the things that make Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:

Wrong on environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.
I think that Move On has good motives, and this guy might be a crackpot but this doesn't prove it. A lot of times judges end up doing the opposite of what they did as lawyers. Former prosecutors know the limits of the police and former public defenders can be harder on defendants. One of the best judges I know was only a lobbyist before his appointment. Now, I wouldn't take a chance like that with a US S.Ct. appointment. :(

The law school paper comment strikes me as completely unfair. The best way to write a paper that will get a good grade and maybe even published in law school is to write something that advocates a change in the law and/or argues for something unexpected. I don't agree with what I wrote in my law review paper but I took an unpopular position on a hot topic and it got me noticed. What you publish later in your career is a whole different matter. I don't know when he went to law school, but environmental law was a hot topic for a long time. So taking a more radical spin on that topic would make sense.

I guess none of this matters because unless we suddenly found out that he has employed slave labor, it looks like a done deal.

[ToucanSpam]

Religion only applies to a single person. it doesn't apply to other facets of society, especially government.
Unless of course you live in a theocracy. (lb)

[sam i am]

Frankly, I'm beginning to care very little about this subject. It's too little too late now. This has been coming since I was in college in the early 80s. We all knew this was at stake when we voted in 2004. Most people couldn't be bothered. We got what we deserve.

Nice admission. Bet that one hurt. You went up a notch in my estimation with that one, Documad....props!