my thoughts on John Roberts, Its long but all of you US Citizens should read it
 

What Have We Here ( John Roberts): I know it is long but every one of you should read this.

I spent the day studying up on this fellow. Interesting choice, he has exactly 20 months experience as a judge on a fedearl appeals court. He has NO paper trail whatsoever on any first amendment issue, he has argued for abortion bans (for his client, the U S government) but has also stated that he personally thinks Roe v. Wade is settled.

That seeming inconsistancy is going to be the focus of his nomination process. Unfortuneatly.

See the whole abortion thing is ridiculous, it isn't even before the court to revisit Roe v. Wade but lets assume for the moment that the God squad gets it's way and the Supreme Court REVERSES Roe v. Wade ( which is HIGHLY unlikely) but what happens if it does?

If you answered nothing you are correct. It will be up to the states to decide if that particular state wants to allow abortion and under what conditions, so some states will allow abortion others won't. The push will then be on the feds to either amend the constitution banning abortion altogether ( and brothers and sisters that AINT going to happen ) or to have abortion punished as homicide at the federal level, that aint gonna happen either. So as you can see vacating that ruling would set up a tremendous amount of turmoil in terms of equal right., civil rights and and privacy rights cases that would be filed before the ink was dry on the majority opinion. Best to leave it alone and the Justices all know it.

In reviewing his opinions, he has more often than not sided with whatever side was representing the authority of the federal or local government. Consider this....the case that will cause him the most discomfort:

This case grew out of an infamous incident in the District of Columbia several years ago -- the arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry on the Metro during a ?zero tolerance? crackdown by transit police on Metro riders violating the subway?s rules against eating and drinking. The child was searched, handcuffed, her shoelaces were removed, she was taken away in a windowless police vehicle, fingerprinted, and held for three hours until she was released into her mother?s custody. The mother brought a civil rights action on behalf of her daughter under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that her daughter?s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. In particular, the mother claimed that the child?s equal protection rights had been violated because, under then-D.C. law, adults in the same situation would only have been given a citation, while juveniles had to be arrested. (In response to the negative publicity surrounding this incident, the no-citation policy for juveniles was changed.)

Judge Roberts?s opinion (joined by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Stephen Williams) affirmed the district court?s ruling against the mother. In rejecting the equal protection claim, Roberts held that the law requiring harsher treatment of juveniles was rationally related to ?the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.? 386 F.3d at 1156. According to Roberts, juveniles given citations might give the police ?an entirely fanciful [name] or, better yet, the name of the miscreant who pushed them on the playground that morning,? and their parents would then never know about their transgression. Id.

Although Roberts began his opinion by noting that ?[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation,? and that the district court had termed the policy ?foolish,? Roberts appeared dismissive of the serious concerns raised by the use of police power in this case, stating that ?the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry.? Id. at 1150. The police, however, did far more than make the child cry; they arrested her, handcuffed her, took her away in a police vehicle, and gave her an arrest record that she must now live with.

Now after reading this consider the behavior of Mr. Roberts own son while on stage last night, apparently he doesn't practice what he would preach. Now I am not saying he is a bad parent but if juveniles should be held to the same standard as adults in trivial matters in order to make sure the parents are aware of the behavior then Mr Roberts deserves to be called on the carpet for the behavior of his son last night, just to make sure he knows there is a problem.

Two more decisions that bother me:

? Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
In 1991, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored an amicus curiae brief filed by the United States in the case of Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), in which he urged the Court to rule that it was constitutional for a public school to sponsor prayer at its graduation ceremonies. While Roberts?s brief acknowledged that coerced participation in a religious ceremony was improper, the brief claimed that no such coercion was present here, since students were free not to attend their graduations: ?A voluntary decision not to witness a civic acknowledgment of religion . . . cannot be considered a response to coercion.?

In this case the Court rejected Roberts?s argument, holding that public schools may not sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. The Court specifically noted the coercive nature of the event. While recognizing that students may not formally be required to attend their own graduation ceremonies, the Court likewise recognized that the importance of this event means that attendance is not ?voluntary? in ?any real sense of the term.? 505 U.S. at 595. The Court stated that the government?s argument to the contrary ?lacks all persuasion,? noting that the ?[l]aw reaches past formalism.? Id. And the Court specifically criticized the government?s argument for its erroneous First Amendment analysis:

? United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored the government?s brief in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), contending that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which criminalized flag burning, was constitutional. Although Roberts?s brief conceded that the conduct at issued constituted ?expressive conduct,? the brief claimed that ?[t]he First Amendment does not prohibit Congress . . . from removing the American flag as a prop available to those who seek to express their own views by destroying it.?6 In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court majority, including Justice Scalia, disagreed, holding that the law violated the First Amendment. As the Court explained in striking down the law, ?[p]unishing desecration of the flag

The only way I can see that flag burning could be deemed illegal is if legislation is passed making the American flag the sole property of the federal government...like money is. If you buy a flag, you own it and however distasteful it may be to me to see you burn it, you should have that right.

As for prayer in public schools, this is another case of government failing to understand that freedom of religion really does mean freedom from religion in government institutions, the constitution expressly forbids any religion being associated with any government. If you wish to pray in school nobody is stopping you but for the school to mandate prayer to a captive audience is in fact, wrong. If you wish your child to have a formal education that includes religious doctrine that option is available to you in private schools.

What concerns me most is that we are considering a man with absolutely no real experience as a judge to sit on the highest court in the land for the rest of his life or until he voluntarily retires. He will likely still be on the court when I am dead. Personally I'd like a lot more breadth and depth of experience in someone that we as citizens are placing that much trust in.

I was wondering, what did Roberts' son do last night? I was out on a date.

it wasnt that big of a deal he was dancing on the stage and when his mother tried to grab him and bring him in it appeared he tried to bite her.

all while bush was announcing the mans nomination

the kid is 5 certainly old enough to understand to be still and pleasant for 8 minutes

Poor behaviour in their kids is not uncommon in the religious right - they're so busy holy-rollering that they don't take the time to bring their kids up in the right way.

It's a sad indictment on their life-style.

And thanks Mike - that post is of interest to everyone in this industry - not just US webmasters.

You have to always worry when someone comes off that squeaky clean.

Lucky he isn't my kid, would have resulted in the implementation of the 10 second delay for all live broadcasts as I would have smacked the living crap out of him

Conservative, Member of the Federalist Soc. --- Enough said...

We had a good 50 or so years in power, mostly controlling the house / senate, sometimes the white house.

It all comes around full circle.... New Deal is being chopped away, big brother is getting closer and closer, right wingers have the good spin, and let's get back to the 1950's :( Not all the way, but some values the right want will come around again :(

Is that what your father did to you, doggy? Did he whip your biker's ass when you talked back to him? No wonder you can't shut your big mouth on the boards........trying to get back at daddy.

No child deserves to be hit, spanked, whipped, or physically hurt in any way. If you can't handle your kids, then give them to someone who can in a non-physical way.

As far as Roberts go.....he doesn't deserve the nomination for all of the reasons you stated and many more. So he has bratty kids. Who cares? Sometimes you can be the best father and mother in the world and still end up with kids like this one and baddog. :(

Microchick i think you missed the point
if that 12 year old girl had to be handcuffed, fingerprinted and taken to jail in a police car and MR Roberts upholds that as a necessary move to make sure the parents know then his kid should have been at the very least cited for public nuisance, or whatever else they would have done to a reporter who did the same thing.

MicroBitch missing a point? say it ain't so, Joe

It looks like he will be a right wing political activist instead of a judge, siding with the Republican Party, more than following the Constitution.

He worked with Ken Starr going after Clinton for a blowjob, but he thinks Bush can do no wrong.

He is a partisan activist, not a judge. He gave money to Bush's campaigns and in return Bush gave him a judgeship.

What more do you need to know? :1orglaugh

I'd second that motion

:thumbsup

Wait a second. Look at all the kids of the Presidents, past and present. Some have been real doozies, but you don't blame the parents for every obnoxious act perpetrated by the kids.

I could care less about Robert's kids. It is his record that needs to be examined. His stand on Roe v Wade is enough for me to eliminate him.

Roberts argued that the Supreme Court should invalidate a federal affirmative action program; and that environmental groups lack the right to sue under the Endangered Species Act.

the question I ask myself weekly as of late, is where to move that is more socially liberal, with a more healthy culture to raise a family

this (the US) is becoming a much stranger, more violent and less rational one by the minute it seems :(

I hate feeling such pessimism

:/

What answers have you come up with?

from what I heard, he's a conservative, but not a radical one...
he has to pass the senate after all... and he shouldn't be more conservative than the woman who left, but.... who knows?

mostly countries that border the mediteranean sea



you?



:pimp

exactly.
i can't think of any place in the world today that's ideal for raising children for example.

time for people to stop having children i guess :1orglaugh

that's a broad definition...
like what... Italy? Turkey? Lybia? :)

Judge Roberts is a bright man that can't be denied. If he uses his intelligence independently, that will be a good thing.

However, there is an insidious potential underside to all of this too.

It's quite possible that he may have been groomed by the right wing for this position from the very beginning. It certainly seems he was ambitious enough from the get go.

First, he clerked for Chief Justice Renquist (Renquist wants a protege on the Court and he has him in Roberts).

Next the Reagan Administration brought him in as an Associate Counsel to the President. Quite a leap for a law clerk.

This led to him being hired on to a DC law firm where he could practice as an attorney for large corporate clients while accumulating a fortune in the process, all the time carefully steering clear of the broad social issues that Supreme Court Justices must decide upon.

George Bush, Sr. brought him back to serve in the Federal Government during his adminstration before the revolving door sent him back to the same DC firm.

Then less than two year's ago, he was given his first Judgeship position by George Bush, Jr. With less than two years of Judicial experience he is now on the verge of ascending to the Supreme Court. That is highly unusual to say the least.

Roberts obviously has a partisan agenda having eagerly served at the behest of Republican President's during his entire government career. Despite this, he has not weighed in much (personally or politically) on many of the important issues that the Supreme Court addresses.

So what gives me an inkling that this Catholic "family man" with the smiling face might have a plan to be more of a right-wing activist than he has tried to lead people to believe?

A part of it is his wife's background. She was Vice-President of a pro-life anti-abortion group. His two poster children are adopted.

Also, in 1991, while Roberts was Deputy Solicitor General, he "co-wrote" the administration?s brief in Rust v. Sullivan, defending the abortion "gag rule" barring doctors in clinics receiving federal funds from discussing abortion. True to the administration?s position, the brief disavowed Roe, stating "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

George Bush is an idiot, but he is also a zealot - look at the mess he has created in the Middle East. In appointing Roberts to the Supreme Court, I believe he is seeking nothing less than to roll back legalized abortion.

The "Roberts Project" has been a long time in coming, but it appears nonethless part of a longterm strategy for changing the social structure of this country.

If the religious right achieves this objective, expect social upheaval in this country unlike anything we have experienced before.

ADG Webmaster

:eek7 :eek7 :eek7

she was pretty conservative from what i heard

i could be wrong

Just like your nickname
FICTION: a literary work based on the imagination and not necessarily on fact

You are probably right. He is really a moderate person who has no extreme right wing agenda. He probably also supports free speech, gay rights, and a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body.

If you believe that, you really are living in a world of fiction. :1orglaugh

Personally I would consider the south of Spain, south of France, Greece, Italy and Israel as potential candidates worthy of living in culturally speaking.

The US is a culture of prisons (largest in the world), war (with changing definitions of causation), violence (widespread), and torture & loss of personal freedoms in the name of security, etc.

:/


PS: I'd consider living in Istanbul, but might rule out Damascus

I hate Julia Roberts btw.

:1orglaugh

why don't you consider canada?

translation?

Re the emotional French Fry case and the cries of hypocrisy it elicits... :

The question wasn't whether Roberts felt that local governments SHOULD pass such regulations (based on the dicta of the case he disagreed with this) but whether under the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE under which the mother filed a Sec 1983 claim (ie., private lawsuit if your constitutional rights were violated) allowed the local government to formulate and implement such a discriminatory rule. Since the standard is RATIONAL BASIS (much much lower than Strict Scrutiny), the answer was YES...they have a right to do enact such statutes/regulations. Rational Basis means is there a reasonable argument for implementing differing standards for differing classes of people (in this case, young v adults) and the Court found such a basis.

Poor behaviour in kids is not uncommon to all walks of life.

True - but they are the ones that suggest that they know how to bring up children - when obviously they don't!

"Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it later in life"

A very liberal translation of one of their own Proverbs.

Roberts is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court other than his lack of experience as a sitting judge...but I am not sure that this should even be considered as a disqualifier...as one does not actually have to have experience as a judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

In my opinion he is is not an ultra conservative but is a moderate conservative. In my opinion he will be confirmed but not without somekind of a stink being raised by the Democrats and I personally think this will further hurt the Democrats. They need to pick their fights carefully and not just constantly throw shit against the wall hoping that some of it will stick.

This man is clearly qualified and unless the Democrats or the press can find a legitimate skeleton the Democrats should not make a big deal out of this nominee.

Since he is a rightwingnut I bet he is a closet case that loves the cock.

I like reading your posts, Mike

:-)

Believe it or not... I think the power of the Supreme Court is only going to diminish over the next few years. But for now it's still important

CAFTA is up for a vote in the House. If it passes, then the supreme court can be overruled by an international court. CAFTA will probably not pass this time, but you know it will sometime in the future.

One more thing, there will probably be another SCOTUS vacancy in the near future. If B*sh appoints a conservative for this position, and then appoints a non-idealogical "moderate" for the second.. Then the B*sh family will completely control the Supreme Court

Check out the math... 3 conservatives, 3 liberals, one B*sh "moderate"

The B*sh "moderate" will be the tie breaking vote on every decision... he will do what B*sh wants

Rumour has it that the next SCOTUS nominee will be attny general gonzalez (B*sh's lackey from Texas)

Please check your math... there's NINE (9) Justices on the US Supreme Court. For verification, please see http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/...iescurrent.pdf

Also, just because a REPUBLICAN appoints a Justice does not NECESSARILY MEAN that the Justice will be a CONSERVATIVE.

Examples:

Eisenhower --> Justices Warren & Brennan (2 uberliberals)
Nixon --> Justice Stevens (started out right then went center then left)
Bush Sr --> Justice Souter (moderate then went left)

Nixon appointed Rehnquist as a law and order conservative and he turned out rightwing... but for every Rhenquist, you'll see the pattern described above.

I have tended to assume that the Democrats will put up a reasonable fight over this appointment and that at least 1 or 2 candidates will be burned in the process. Thus I only thought it might be a remote possibility that Roberts would be appointed, regardless of his record and so I hadn't planned to read up on him unless that looked like changing.

But okay, you summarized 3 of his judgements and based on these alone, I don't share your concerns. In the first case in particular he rendered a solid judgement based on the law. And that is his job. He can't rewrite the law just because, as he apparently said, ?no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation?. His own success or failure as a parent is irrelevant.

I don't have any problem with the other two decisions.

Having read a little beyond your posting, what does concern me is that he seems to have been picked and groomed for a role like this long before there were any obvious (to the public) reasons for making that choice. But then again, isn't it predictable that Bush will look to appoint someone from his own "court", just as any other President from either party would in similar circumstances. I suspect Roberts is a long way from the worst appointee we could get.

I happen to agree that he is probably a very good choice as first - most of those examples used for his "opinions" was a case he was fighting as a lawyer - not his decision as a judge. During his confirmation process the last time he was challenged about the Roe vs Wade statements he made as a representative lawyer and his response was its already a settled issue and the law of the land.
I don't think he actually has any sort of agenda and after doing some research on people that have worked with him, in all cases they respect him for having his own judgement, instead of being swayed by what someone else wants hime to do.
My only concerns with him are his leanings towards corporate support but then that is again as a lawyer. Focusing on his briefs and past lawyer actions are probably not the best thing to look at as those will always be opinionated towards whatever his firms clients wanted.
I would wait until the confirmation process to see what his answers will be on actual bench decisions, although I think they will be scarce and this guy will sail through with no real opposition (of course the congress will have to play the mandatory abortion card just to satisfy the Fox News watchers) - but after that he should be confirmed pretty quickly - based on S Conners statements yesterday - she even thinks he was a confirmable choice.
Everything Ive seen in his actual Judge decision file has been middle of the road so I dont think the makeup of the SC will change at all.

thanks Man...I try

I keep saying it
too much heat on the Bush Administration now
so old stories coming back out... or other news getting front page and anything Bush does is pushed back somewhere in a corner
where most likely to miss it

themoment they do somethign good.. then back to page 1

Ah, so translated this is simple.

Catholic who does not believe in birth control in the first place, is unable to produce children which makes her psycho neocon anti-abortion woman.

you have to watch out for these women. nothing worst than these women who cant have babies in the first blace fighting for anti-abortion, they are twisted and psycho.

my guess is they are both pedos

he won't be confirmed.
his only experience as a judge at all is 20 months as a judge on a federal appeals court. Would you hire someone for a key position in your company with 20 experience?
He wrote very few opinions, the democrates don't know him or what he will do. I have a feeling even some republicans may vote him down due to lack of experience.
for a lifetime appointment this is just too much risk.

Focus on the Family is supporting Roberts:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/apd...ire_num=238749

:(

I love it when Ted Kennedy goes after those he doesn't like. He never holds back. The confrontation between Kennedy and Rumsfeld at the Senate Armed Services Committee was priceless. Kennedy told Rumsefeld he should resign. All the big Generals were sitting there defending the war in Iraq. I wonder what Kennedy will say about Roberts?

Didn't know Roberts' children were adopted. So many celebrities are adopting. You really can't blame the age of the female any longer since they are freezing eggs and getting healthy babies from the procedure. I wonder why nobody ever asks Tom Cruise point blank why he never has kids of his own. He tells the world he wants children with Katie. Well, the first and second wives never gave birth with Tom's kids.

Bush should ask Cruise what he thinks of Roe v Wade. If he believes it is bad law, then he can join the Republicans and support Roberts as well as a drugfree society.

here is my take for what it is worth.

I think overall the guy seems like a modertate type of conservative. Yes he is pro-life eventhough he may not have said it outright just yet.

Roe V Wade will not be fought in a big battle first they will fight to limit the types of abortions you can have ( IE no late term ) and they will fight to force underage girls to have parents permission and more and more. They will try to erode away at it. Maybe one day it will be overturned. Maybe not. As for it being overturned not being a big deal that is wrong. It is a HUGE deal. Yes individual states can still say that people can have abortions but do you think for one second that a government that fights to overturn roe V wade will not go after those people federally? You need only loot at the medical marijana case to see the answer. There are several states where you can have medicinal pot but the supreme court just said that the feds can still come and get you because you are breaking a federal law.

But that aside one thing remains. Once a judge gets on the court they are no longer bound to any party, or persons. The president can't change his mind and remove them.It is a life long appointment so many of the justices do what they feel is right, not necessarily what thier party would want them to do. You can see how some justices started out conservative and ended up liberal or moderate or vice versa as proof.

That is what needs to be asked here. What will he do when he has nobody to answer to and no hight office to hold?

I think of the people that could be picked he is not as bad as it could be. He seems to be much like o'conner in many ways. I think the dems would be wise to confirm him and I think they will unless some kind of major skeleton is in the closet or something wild happens in the hearings.

The bigger picture is renquist. I can't see him making it another 3 years. So you have to assume that Bush is going to be appointing another justice before he is out of office. Say it's 2 years from now. Bush has nothing to lose. He can't be re-elected, Cheney isn't going to run, he could go ahead and nominate a hardcore right wing religious nut job like john ashcroft. the dems would fight and fight and hopefully win but even if bush loses he wins becuase in nominating someone like that he will energize the far right and they will turn out to vote for the next republican candidate.

If anything can be said about the religous right it is that they organize and vote. Unlike the liberals who tend to bitch and stay home on election day.