Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP: Appellate court judge Roberts is Bush pick

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
TrueAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:45 PM
Original message
AP: Appellate court judge Roberts is Bush pick
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 06:55 PM by TrueAmerican
President to officially announce court nominee Tuesday night

BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 7:48 p.m. ET July 19, 2005


WASHINGTON - President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John C. Roberts Jr. as his nominee to the Supreme Court, a senior administration official says.

Bush is to announce his choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a brief address to the nation Tuesday night. Bush's selection, to be announced with a flourish on prime-time television with the nominee by the president's side is expected to set off what may be a major struggle over the direction of the nations highest court.

Speculation swept through Washington for much of the day, continuing the guessing game that began after O'Connor resigned July 1. Tuesday afternoon, NBC News learned that Judge Edith Brown Clement is not the president's nominee. Clement, who serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, had emerged throughout the day Tuesday as something of a speculative front-runner.
more
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Okay..anybody
got a bio?

Was this one under the radar? All I've heard all day is about the two (maybe three) women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:47 PM
Original message
He was mentioned all day among about five people, but...
didn't come forward as the best bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
150. This is the best the RETARDICANS can do?
This is the best?

A lifetime lawyer, a partisan right wing tool and someone with less juidical experience than Clarence Thomas had when Nebish Boosh nominated him?

SOMEONE GET THE DUCT TAPE. These retardicans are making my head explode!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. bio
John Roberts

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.

Alliance for Justice Resources:

* Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
* Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts

* Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
* B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
* 1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
* 1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
* U.S. Department of Justice
o 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
o 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
* 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
* Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
o 1986-89, Associate
o 1993-present, Partner

General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPA’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:

Organization Position
Alliance for Justice Opposes

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donailin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. i wonder how he'll vote when Rove takes his appeal for the guilty
verdict for treason all the way to the SC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
6th Borough Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. Organization Position?
I must say, that is a new one...and I do consider myself to be rather politically astute. Any information on this group? Web address, prior issue statements, etc...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. Alliance For Justice
The Alliance for Justice is a national association of environmental, civil rights, mental health, women's, children's and consumer advocacy organizations. Since its inception in 1979, the Alliance has worked to advance the cause of justice for all Americans, strengthen the public interest community's ability to influence public policy, and foster the next generation of advocates.

http://www.allianceforjustice.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
123. WTF? This man has minimal experience as a judge.
How can he possibly be considered for a Supreme Court seat?

Oh, yeah, he is a loyal party member.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jurassicpork Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #123
146. Based on his resume...
...it doesn't appear as if Mr. Roberts has *any* experience as a judge. He's a mob lawyer, plain and simple and the mob is George Orwell's party.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #123
159. That and...
When he was a lawyer, he argued a bunch of cases in front of the Supreme court. He's anti-environmental and anti-affirmative action. He looks like he blinked on abortion but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. In short, he's the perfect cookie cutter conservative mimicking the party line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jurassicpork Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
143. Hm!
"Mr. Roberts... has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations."

"President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed."

"The brief ... also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided."

"A Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients."

"As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls."

"Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected."

In other words, he's perfect for Bush's Supreme Court.

What did you guys expect? And you just know that when the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee start making noises that don't sound like Hosannas during the confirmation hearings, Bush and his GOP goon squad are going to start bringing out the rubber truncheons and whacking the liberals on the elbow in retaliation for "partisan politics." Yeah, sounds like Bush really "consulted" with those 60 Senators and I'll bet you 55 of them were the Republicans. Lip service, as I'd said before.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
167. In other words, kiss America goodbye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jurassicpork Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
168. Got a little more info
onthis bird at this place:
http://courtinginfluence.net/nominee.php?nominee_id=55 and here: http://newsmeat.com/judiciary_political_donations/John_...

I'm trying to get as much as I can on this guy. So far, it seems that just over half of the people on Daily Kos are saying that we should be relieved that this guy isn't a raving lunatic and that the Dems should save their firepower for "extraordinary circumstances."

Fuck that. The SCOTUS *is* extraordinary.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wookie294 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. He wrote an opinion saying Roe should be overturned
according to CNN report right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoyGBiv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
79. Quote from his brief ...
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:46 PM by RoyGBiv
Re: Roe v Wade

"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. . ."

I lifted this from one of a dozen or so news stories and don't remember which one. Just captured it while browsing. I'm looking for the full quote at the moment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. NBC saying *VERY* conservative in his rulings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here we fucking go
This is no compromise at all. This nomination is as "in your face" as it is possible to get. Time to strap on the gloves folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
6th Borough Donating Member (670 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
71. My gloves are strpped on tight, but for some reason I don't believe...
Mel Martinez's are.

41 votes, folks, 41 votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canedawg Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
82. Gloves on?
I thought the gloves had been on with the Rove thing. Or was that just for show?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. He wanted the focus off Rove,
guess he might have accomplished it for a day or two..till the torture photos hit the airwaves on top of the Rove scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boneman Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:34 PM
Original message
I think you are right, shraby. And this pick could very well move the
talk away from Rove. Gawd, Bush is such a clown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
105. You're more optimistic than I am.
Torture photos? What torture photos? :sarcasm:

I have a baaaaad feeling that this will sweep the Rove thing under the rug and those mysterious torture photos that were supposed to be released weeks ago will disappear as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thurgood Marshall Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #105
125. Thought exactly that
Just found out about it about an hour ago and that was my first thought on it. Bush picks an idealogue, less for the purpose of getting him nominated than for the purpose of raising the intensity of the debate and moving attention from Karl Rove.

If the Rove focus stops, and the Pubs use the inevitable filibuster to cast their usual hateful diatribes against the Dems, then it will have worked out perfectly for them, nomination or not...



ForgottenAmerica
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evolved Anarchopunk Donating Member (188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #105
191. where are those pictures ???! anyone on DU know ? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Another friggin' man on the court. Jeez!
What a joke.

Nine Justices.

One woman.

What a travesty!

What a shitty thing this is!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
60. Bush** picks the Court's 107th white guy
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:31 PM by KamaAina
http://slate.msn.com/id/2122875 /

First, Bush watchers have been predicting for quite some time days even that he wouldn't nominate the Court's 107th white guy. Based on Karl Rove's assiduous political strategy of courting the Latino vote, some of us thought Bush wouldn't be able to resist picking the first Latino. The credit for a Clement nomination would go instead to First Lady Laura Bush, who went on morning television from South Africa to urge her husband to replace O'Connor with another woman. That can mean only one thing: Rove is on his way out, and has already been replaced as chief political strategist by Laura Bush.

Bush** had not one but two opportunities to do something resembling the right thing: name Alberto Gonzales as the Court's first Latino (albeit a pro-torture one), or name Edith Clement so as to keep two women on the Court.

But you know Bush** is always going to choose the right wing over the right thing.

edit: Perfect. A hrad right wingnut who has built up enough personal friendships with Dems so that they will not likely go to the mat to block him. Plus he's a mere stripling of 50, which for a Justice is practically young enough to get carded for cigarettes, so our children will be asking us how that troglodyte Roberts ever got on the Court!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
116. Kinda reminds me of what Churchill said.


His comment was: You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing. Once they've tried everything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Longhorn79 Donating Member (222 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
156. I've got an issue with the nominee's conservatism,
but not with his gender. What the hell difference does it make that he's a guy? Or white for that matter? If Bill Clinton was nominated, I'm sure you'd raise the same objection (not that he could be since he's disbarred).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #156
196. I would object to Bill Clinton in this instance because of his gender.
But then I believe in quotas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CONN Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. Rove's pick?
To out flank his enemies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tk2kewl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. he must be a freaking nobody...
cant even get a decent google hit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Here's his bio
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cf...

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.



Alliance for Justice Resources:

Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts





Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
U.S. Department of Justice
1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
1986-89, Associate
1993-present, Partner
General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPA’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.


1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).


The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:

Organization Position
Alliance for Justice Opposes

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1984ever Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. Link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MO_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. This means Rove is guilty, right?
Seems to me it's an admission that Rove, et al, did wrong and they want the press attention diverted!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4_Legs_Good Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
13. Safe to say we're doomed!
:nuke:

david
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wookie294 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. They will overturn Roe, which will destroy the GOP
A handful of states will make abortion illegal after the Supreme Court overturns Roe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
111. They'll still be a vote shy for that
Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a 6-3. But you might see some restrictions such as the so called "partial birth abortion" ban that was struck down by the courts along with all sorts of other restrictions. That's scary enough.

I hope Stevens can hang in there until 2008. This Roberts guy is pretty young too. If they go nuclear, and we can somehow win the White House and a Senate majority under the next Democratic President in 2008-13, we should shove two of the youngest most liberal judges imaginable right back down their throats. Pack that court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. WP article link: "conservative, not idealogue"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


...In his years as a lawyer, Roberts, 50, proved himself an affable and measured member of the Washington legal establishment. But his short tenure on the bench has meant fewer written opinions that can be parsed for his philosophy....

***

Of the two, Roberts spent more time practicing law in Washington, where he has networked with many Democrats. When Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, Clinton's former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, called Roberts an "exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocate."

"He is a Washington lawyer, a conservative, not an ideologue," said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts.

He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court -- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.

That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
17. It's John Roberts.
For SCOTUS. Breaking now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
finecraft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Member of the Federalist Society
That's all I need to know....we're screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemFromMem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
77. Federalist Society is not always indicative
It also has a libertarian wing. Doubt Roberts is part of that wing, but I did have friends in law school who were in the Federalist Society that held views that would make religious conservatives bristle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaliraqvet26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #77
126. i dont see anything that says hes a jesus freak..
hes a northern catholic, not a southern baptist

seems more like the business whore type to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rexcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #126
180. Ummm...
northern republican conservative catholic --- there goes Roe v. Wade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
delete_bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #77
133. true, but I bet he's of this "wing"...
Federalist Society Members in the Bush Administration: :

- Attorney General John Ashcroft
- Secretary of the Department of Energy Spencer Abraham
- Secretary of the Department of Interior Gale Norton
- Solicitor of Labor Eugene Scalia (Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's son)
- General Counsel of the Department of Education Brian Jones
- Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson
- Solicitor General Ted Olson

Other High-Profile Federalist Society Members :

- Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court
- Senator Orrin Hatch
- Kenneth Starr
- Judge Robert Bork, failed Supreme Court nominee
- Linda Chavez, President of the Center for Equal Opportunity
- Charles Murray, controversial author who asserted that some races are inherently less intelligent than others
- Don Hodel, former Christian Coalition president
- Michigan Governor John Engler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rene Donating Member (758 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
136. With his bush close ties and background he'll be an internal spy
on the Supreme Court for bushco for years to come. Just the 2000 election advice/crap should make him suspect.
bush is surrounded by people that can blackmail him...and people he can blackmail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaliraqvet26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #136
149. bushco dont have many years left...
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 09:32 PM by liberaliraqvet26
lets be optimistic and get back to beating up that fat double chin criminal rove
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Bio stuff -
John Roberts


Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan, deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan & Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appointed 2003).

His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

For Reagan, opposed a congressional effortin the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Boldento make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.

Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion, Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)

For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)

Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)

Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)

In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. More bio (pfaw) on federalist society fascist -
John Roberts, DC Circuit
In the short time since he was confirmed by the Senate in May 2003, Judge Roberts has issued troubling dissents from decisions by the full D.C. Circuit not to reconsider two important rulings. These included a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act as applied in a California case and a ruling against Bush Administration efforts to keep secret the records concerning Vice President Cheney's energy task force.


Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003): constitutionality of Endangered Species Act

This case involved a real estate development company's contention that the application of the Endangered Species Act to its construction project in California was an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. After the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the company's project "was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad," placed on the Endangered Species List by the Secretary of the Interior in 1994, the company filed suit "ather than accept an alternative plan proposed by the Service." Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The district court dismissed the company's complaint, and a panel of the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the dismissal (323 F.3d 1062), following prior D.C. Circuit precedent upholding congressional authority under the Endangered Species Act. By a vote of 7-2, the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc (by the entire court) of the panel's ruling.


The only dissenters were Judges Roberts and Sentelle. All of the other Republican-appointed judges on the court - Judges Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph - joined the court's Democratic appointees in voting to deny rehearing en banc. The panel's opinion upholding the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause in this case not only followed D.C. Circuit precedent, but was also consistent with a recent ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 (2001). The opinion in that case upholding the authority of Congress to protect endangered species on private lands was written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a conservative Republican-appointee.

Roberts's dissent in Rancho Viejo strongly suggested that he thought it would be unconstitutional to apply the Endangered Species Act in this case. By his vote to rehear the case and thus potentially reverse the district court, Roberts indicated that he may well be ready to join the ranks of such right-wing officials as Judge Michael Luttig (who dissented in Gibbs) and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor - nominated by President Bush to the Eleventh Circuit - in their efforts to severely limit the authority of Congress to protect environmental quality as well as the rights and interests of ordinary Americans.


In re: Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9205 (2003): secrecy of Vice President Cheney's energy task force

Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court's 5-3 denial of a petition for rehearing en banc (with one judge not participating) filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney's energy task force. This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President's task force had violated federal law by not making its records public. The court's ruling marked "the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public." Carol D. Leonnig, "Energy Task Force Appeal Refused," Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2003). At the Administration's urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13523...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
72. Didn't the Federalist argue against the Bill of Rights? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. a.k.a. jackbooted goose-stepping blackshirt thug
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Cool, we now have a fascist in line
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Thinks Roe v Wade is wrong
Apparently Bu$h wants to rumble. Except he really needs a win right now and he's not going to get it. Bad move jerks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
158. John Kerry thinks abortion is wrong, too. This guy may be

a hard-rightie -- we'll soon see in confirmation hearings, whether he makes it to SCOTUS or not -- but he has told the Senate in past confirmation hearing that he recognized Roe as the law of the land. Let's hope that if he is confirmed, he is the "strict constructionist" that Republicans always clamor for and will abide by the Constitution.

Frankly, I'd bet on Bush** nominating someone who says he is pro-life but won't do anything to overturn Roe. I'm a pro-life progressive Democrat who doesn't think overturning Roe is the way to end abortion, and I don't think that Junior really gives two shits about ending abortion, or even reducing the number of abortions. If he really did, he'd be proactive about helping people avoid unplanned pregnancies and helping women in need so they don't feel compelled to abort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Isn't it wonderful, He's another Uniter, Not a Divider...
...an Uniter of the Ultra Right Wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Well
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:00 PM by kwolf68
those who support choice, environmental protections, and freedom from theocracy are screwed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feathered Fish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. oh goody.
Well, this does not seem to be an intellegent choice. Perhaps Bush feels he has nothing to lose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojambo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
63. No they are not. Quit being defeatist.
This is an opportunity for all of those groups to get their agenda front and center in front of the entire country.

This is a pick that allows the Democrats to dig in DEEP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raiden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Oh Fuck! Here we go!!
This is where we see what Senate Dems are made of
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. Fortunately they are in recess
for the next five weeks, so nothing is going to happen. We've got five weeks to pick this guy apart and find the ghosts in his closets. Bush is proving how desperate he is. Otherwise he would have waited until Congress is back in session so that there wouldn't be time to dig up any dirt on this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #38
121. Maybe he has some really big skeleton
that didn't come out before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
119. Longer We Delay, Longer We Keep O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor said her retirement is effective upon the confirmation of her replacement. She did not want the Court to be short-handed. Therefore, the longer we delay Roberts, the longer we get to keep O'Connor, who is less of an ideologue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
27. Yahoo: Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 06:58 PM by Tweed
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scotus_bush



'WASHINGTON - President Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, senior administration officials said.

Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visiting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.

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.'




http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cf ...

BIO:

Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.

Alliance for Justice Resources:

Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts

Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
U.S. Department of Justice
1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
1986-89, Associate
1993-present, Partner
General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPA’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.


1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).


The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:

Organization Position
Alliance for Justice Opposes


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. crazed fundie freak Robert's photo
looks like a younger ashcroft. :hide:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raiden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. This is so scary!!!
God I hope Reid, Boxer and the rest stand up for us!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. If you have to SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN!
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:12 PM by calipendence
COMPLETELY DOWN! Fillibuster *EVERYTHING* if they try to go nuclear on you! This is the fundamental battle we've all elected you to fight. This is where we expect you to fight to your fullest abilities to win!

Don't let any business go through the Senate or the House unless they pull back this nomination.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raiden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:11 PM
Original message
Right on!
And if they don't fight the good fight - I'll never vote Dem again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. OMG!!!!................Rabid as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #40
89. Look at his eyes...........
you can tell with that blank stare, there's nothing upstairs but a preprogrammed neo-bot.

Scary fucking dude. He shall not pass!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #89
120. Yes the eyes are the window to his soul......(yikes)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
59. I think I heard he's Catholic.
Which probably means just about the same with regard to Roe. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #59
162. Yeah, after all John Kerry's Catholic and he's such a big opponent of Roe.

:sarcasm:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bear425 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #162
169. Yes, you're right. John Kerry's not an opponent of Roe.
I was responding to post #28 that said Roberts was a Fundie. I'm not saying all Catholics would oppose Roe. Why bring JK into this at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClintonTyree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
85. Yeah...50 years old, he'll be around for a LONG time.........
just what we need. A fucking whacko fundie for the next 30 years or so returning the country back to the 19th century. Why do they all have to be so fucking REGRESSIVE? :mad:

What is it with these people, that they're so scared of the present and the future? :shrug: They want to return to the days of robber-barons, slave labor, NO WOMAN'S RIGHTS, shit, no rights for anyone!

Godamn it, if these fuckers want to pick a fight, I'll knock the snot out these pricks. I've had it with these asswipes! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #85
165. THAT is the scary thing: he's only 50. In the past,

I think appointees to SCOTUS have always been older. We don't know what he'd do on the Court (and neither does Bush**, lots of appointees have diverged greatly from the views of the president who appointed them.) But we do know he'd probably have many years on that bench.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Good God!
Not the I expected any better
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Yeah...
We are in for a battle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. He was blocked twice before from joining a lower court
'It took a while for Roberts to get on the bench. He was nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and joined the court in June 2003.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bilgewaterbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
163. I think the Dems controlled the Senate both times.
The pubs control it now. It won't die in committee...it'll have to be filibustered. If they don't, I'll never vote dem again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. How much more right can we possibly get
Honestly canada is looking better all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #32
118. We may be following you north. My wife may have to get over her.....


...dislike of cold weather if she wants to coninue to live with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildflower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Oh boy.
Thanks for posting all the bio information - recommending.

-wildflower
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Thank you for wanting to recommend
But for some reason my thread was combined with this one. Not sure why that happened considering the fact that my post was more informative, but I guess we want people to be less educated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #36
46. FYI
3. Do not post duplicate topics about news events that have already been posted. Please note that we are very strict about duplicates in the Latest Breaking News forum. Multiple discussion threads about the same topic are not permitted. If you would like to share a new article about a news item that is already being discussed, please add it to the thread that is already open on that topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tweed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #46
53. Yeah, I know the rules
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:28 PM by Tweed
And I posted the story first. That's why I'm confused as to why you locked my thread. This poster had a 'thread' up first, but it was just "Hey, I saw on the TV it's Roberts". I actually posted an informative story and added a bio.

Please feel free to send me a PM if I'm in the wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trimble_OK Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Bush is just trying
to distract the country from Rovegate. It won't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidinalameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
104. We may lose Byrd on this vote
As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPA’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

If I remember correctly, Byrd came out for mountaintop removal and against the federal judge's ruling that lead to this being appealed

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
41. What is this guy about?
I don't like the looks of him in the CNN web site photo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
42. Shall we start writing senators now?
This cannot fly. I am so freaking angry. That sorry MFer * is giving the finger to all of us. Oooh I hate him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beboplives Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
43. Bush Picks Roberts
I think that it is highly likely that this pick is designed to take as much heat as possible away from the Plame scandal, and the trail where her outing might lead.

Let us all pray that the media, and the Democraticu leadership have learned to multi-task. Of course, all of this could backfire, because it also allows Fitzgerald to work on his case out of the spotlight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mz Pip Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #43
65. We'd damn well better learn
to multi-task. How hard can it be to focus on twop issues when both are so important. One should not exclude the other.

Mz Pip
:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massachusetts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #43
112. Shut the F Up and Fight!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blitzburgh55 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
45. Fuuuuuk
I hate these bastards. :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
47. So much for Laura's "pillow talk"
His polls will drop into an abyss now!!!

Where the hell is the military????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
49. on the bright side
Bush could've nominated a giant demon from the ninth ring of hell that literally devoured trees and homosexuals to survive and defecated toxic waste by the lakefull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bilgewaterbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #49
166. Scalia's already on the SC. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
50. "as an advocate, also represented liberal positions"
John Roberts, 49. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit. Top of his class at Harvard Law School and a former law clerk for Rehnquist, Roberts is one of the most impressive appellate lawyers around today. Liberal groups object to the fact that, in 1990, as a deputy solicitor general, Roberts signed a brief in a case involving abortion-financing that called, in a footnote, for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. But it would be absurd to Bork him for this: Overturning Roe was the Bush administration's position at the time, and Roberts, as an advocate, also represented liberal positions, arguing in favor of affirmative action, against broad protections for property rights, and on behalf of prisoners' rights. In little more than a year on the bench, he has won the respect of his liberal and conservative colleagues but has not had enough cases to develop a clear record on questions involving the Constitution in Exile. On the positive side, Roberts joined Judge Merrick Garland's opinion allowing a former employee to sue the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for disability discrimination. He pointedly declined to join the unsettling dissent of Judge David Sentelle, a partisan of the Constitution in Exile, who argued that Congress had no power to condition the receipt of federal transportation funds on the Metro's willingness to waive its immunity from lawsuits. In another case, however, Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that "the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California," and therefore could not affect interstate commerce. Nevertheless, Roberts appears willing to draw sensible lines: He said that he might be willing to sustain the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act on other grounds. All in all, an extremely able lawyer whose committed conservatism seems to be leavened by a judicious temperament.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&s=rosen112904


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SCRUBDASHRUB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Fucking idiot!!!!!
Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blitzburgh55 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #54
61. supported a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy......
While working under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Mr. Roberts supported a hard-line,
anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly
impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act and would have
resegregated Americas public schools. He also took strongly anti-choice positions in
two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain
information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women
and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots.
Finally, Mr. Roberts is being considered for lifetime tenure on a court that is only one
step below the U.S. Supreme Court and is acknowledged to be the second most important
court in the country. His nomination must be considered in light of the special
significance of that court. Moreover, Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatchs insistence
on scheduling three controversial Circuit Court nominees, including Mr. Roberts, for
confirmation hearings on a single day ensured that senators had no meaningful
opportunity to question Mr. Roberts about his views on a number of critical issues. The
Alliance for Justice urges the Senate to reject his confirmation.
1 Alliance for Justice letter by law professors to Senate Judiciary Committee, May 8, 2001.


http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. against broad protections for property rights
Since when is the issue of property rights protection owned by the conservatives? Someone needs to have a little chat with the author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wookie294 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
62. dupe
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:29 PM by wookie294
deleted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
73. Thanks
Another Bush judicial appointee with experience representing the mining industry is John G. Roberts, Jr., a former colleague of George Miller's at the Hogan & Hartson law and lobbying firm. Roberts was one of the co-authors of Miller’s amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association’s challenge to the government ban on ‘mountaintop removal’. In 2003, Roberts was confirmed to the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where earlier this year he ruled against environmentalists who were pushing for more restrictive government regulations of copper smelters--many of whom are members of the National Mining Association that Roberts once represented. As a lobbyist in the 1990s, Roberts worked on behalf of the peanut industry, pushing federal legislation that maintained government subsidies which the GAO estimated cost consumers $500 million a year. Agricultural and mining interests are often involved in regulatory cases that come before the DC Circuit Court where Roberts now sits.

http://courtinginfluence.net/stories_print.php?id=7

This is an outrage! He should never have been confirmed in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaliraqvet26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
51. I have no clue what to make of this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
52. Yup, a WASP hard-core neo-con
Why did we get our hopes up for anything else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. Maybe it's for the best
That dufus has sent up an ultra conservative. This way we can let him know upfront that his nominees are NOT acceptable to the majority of Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #56
86. I agree...
I think Americans are ready for moderation in politics, and this is a wake-up call that Bush isn't about that..

Welcome to DU, Taoschick :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livinginphotographs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #56
110. That assumes that the Repubs even care
what is acceptable to the majority of Americans. After all, they got their man-date. Screw the other 49% of us.

Welcome to DU, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SCRUBDASHRUB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #52
66. Maybe I change my license plate to read: WE R FUQD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wild potato Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #52
178. Not a WASP...
...a Catholic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #178
188. My apologies then
"Right wing neo-con who lets the Bible think for him" didn't fit on the subject line. :banghead:

/shrug Then again, from this atheist's perspective, a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, no matter what brand of snake-oil is in the bathroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peaches2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
57. A payoff for Florida
He worked on the stealing of Bush's first election in FL in 2000, so this must have been in the works since then. Plus, if Bush nominated him that's enough for me to know he will help secure the Bush dictatorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chomskyite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
58. Exactly what I thought
. . . a middle finger to non-Republican, moderate and Left-leaning Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
64. We continue to get screwed by the Repubs. The choice
of this man just reinforces the fact that they will do whatever they want. Will Shrub come out tonight wearing his flight suit and say Mission Accomplished?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KAZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. The country you knew is gone.
What are yo0u going to do about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. PM me KAZ
I have a question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
68. So, it looks like * caved in to the religious fundamentalists after all.
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 07:35 PM by seafan
This is what we know at this point:

1. * desperately needs a distraction from Rove/Plame/DSM/treason.

2. * needs the MOST CONTROVERSY POSSIBLE now to shift the focus off Rove, hence a SC nominee that will create mass uproar among the American people, as a nominee who appears to favor corporations, less civil rights, destroying Roe v. Wade, dismantling church and state rules, ruling against environmental protection, and removing regulation from corporations, media, etc. With this nominee, he has the most controversy possible to blind the population.

3. With this SC nomination, * takes the pressure off himself from the religious fundamentalists for now.

4. Underneath all this uproar, * buys time to find a way to slither out of accountability for the Rove mess.

5. We still have the Senate filibuster, so for now, let's allow Harry Reid to coordinate the attack.

6. Meanwhile, all of us should STAY ON POINT with the Rove/Libby investigation, because we are getting close to blowing this out of the water, with the valiant efforts of one Patrick Fitzgerald.

7. On July 22, the horrible torture pictures/videos are due for public release and will further shock and enrage the population.



So, as usual, * 's tactics are *in-your-face*, and therefore no surprise.


Bottom line:

STAY ON POINT WITH ROVE/LIBBY/PLAME. WE ARE GETTING CLOSE TO BLOWING IT OUT OF THE WATER.

Let's go get 'em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KAZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #68
74. This WASP will.
You're anti-choice? You're anti-American. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
69. Geejuz H. Chriss
He might as well picked Rush shitball!! What the fuk? Hello? O'Connor to this Nazi?? What can be done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
75. BBC News says the same thing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
76. Now we will see what the Democrats are made of
It will be an eye opener I'm sure. I'm not going to type a bunch of ranting curse words, but they better fight this with everything they've got.

WE must help too. Please support lobbying groups who advocate for choice, the environment and other liberal causes.

In the next few days I'm sure we will be asked to open our checkbooks. I'll do my best. I hope all DUers will too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. How
How are we going to frame an argument when the Democrats in the Sentate ALL voted for his confirmation? Doesn't this just give more ammunition to shrub?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KAZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. Yeah, whatever..
Slightly different situation no, booby?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taoschick Donating Member (391 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #83
155. Really?
We have to appeal to the average American who doesn't understand the process. The media will no doubt play up the fact that he passed through the Senate on his confirmation 2 years ago. How do we frame the argument that he was okay for the DC circuit court of appeals but disasterous for the Supreme court? You KNOW shrub's minnions in the Senate will be screaming partisanship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #78
128. That's not exactly true...he was confirmed by a "unanimous consent vote"
not a roll call vote. The Pres Pro Tem simply guesstimates that the 'yeas' have won and that is the end of it. But that being said, I -believe- that any Senator could have requested (demanded?) a full vote. But nobody did...as nobody signed in the 2000 challenge. So here we are still with a bunch of spineless "democrats."
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. Elected Democrats are made of jelly
They will probably screw us again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoreDean2008 Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #84
183. IT'S ALL CLINTONS' FAULT!!!
That is because the de facto leaders of the Democratic Party, Bill and Hillary Clinton, are nothing but the co-Bush-lites-in-chief. They are busy kowtowing to Bushes that they pretend like they fight against the Republican wingnuts but they don't. They just like the comfort and previlege that they enjoy by being friends to right-wing extremists and they are just biding time until 2008. And the Clintonista centrists still control the Democratic wing of the U.S. Congress.

The reason Democrats are ineffective since Bush came into the White House was not because the Republicans are strong; it's because the Clintons and their so-called centrist sycophants (who are now right-wings, not the centrists in the traditional sense) have been acting like political double-agents: speaking something against Republicans one day and kowtowing to Republicans next day.

If you are serious about taking back our country, we have to unseat Hillary Clinton in the 2006 mid-term election so the Clintons are completely out of power. The damage Bill and Hillary inflicted on the Democratic Party and our country by abandoning a serious fight against the Republicans is already too much. If this sounds too extreme to you, get over Hillary and check her records in the Senate. She is nothing but a Bush-lite. You don't have to read Ed Klein's questionable new book on Hillary to make up your mind against Hillary.

If Hillary wants to prove otherwise, she has to come forward and spearhead the opposition to John Roberts, even if that costs her possible presidential votes in the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Talismom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #76
137. I sure will OKNancy! First I'm writing my senators to let them know
that I'm watching to see what they're made of! I'm ready for a fight on this issue while fighting to demand MSM and and congressional attention to the Rove/Plame/WMD debacle also!
:grr: :grr: :grr:
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #76
154. This guy will skate through the senate........
there is no fight here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
80. Like his daddy, Bush* picked this guy cause he's "cute" and hopes
his baby-face looks will get him confirmed sooner. Yeah, we'll love like we loved Dan Quayle alright. Bush is looking for a fight to deflect from Traitorgate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
81. So Roberts donated $1000 to the Bush Recount effort
John G. Roberts, Jr., the Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the DC Circuit, also donated $1000 to Bush -- this really is starting to look like a cover charge -- with $3000 to other Republicans and $3900 to Hogan & Hartson's PAC. The PAC gave $136,000, aside from individual donations, and $30,000 in soft money. Roberts then donated $1000 to the Bush recount effort. Hogan & Hartson clients include Mobil Oil Corporation, 3M, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/01/012902_Ch...


So we know how he would have voted if he was on SC in 2000.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
48pan Donating Member (957 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
87. Now we get to see what kind of balls...
our Senators actually have. This should be interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNicholson Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
88. Maybe he isn't that bad? According the the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scot ...


AP: Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. You cannot trust AP.
They have a habit of editorializing their supposed news.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNicholson Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. But I thought the AP was on *Our* side?
Reading your link, looks like they are trying to sell more stories to the onlines sites like google & yahoo, and avoid the repetition, no?

I thought AP was a good guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BooScout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #96
113. A news organization is not supposed to be on any side....
They are supposed to report the facts. Period. These days too few do. The two examples given plainly show how a supposed factual story can be editorialized to suit the buyer's (a newspaper editor's) wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #88
100. Just because they were in the Clinton administration ...
... doesn't mean they're good guys. Clinton was one of the best presidents the Republicans ever had, considering some of his decisions (like welfare "reform").

How many members of the D.C. bar are there? Is 126 a large percentage, or a small percentage? And which members? Attorneys who defend corporations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNicholson Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #100
107. I guess I still have much to learn in analyzing this stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
90. Hey, we can all still go to California for an abortion once it is overturn
at the federal level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #90
101. It won't be overturned this is
a diversion from PLAME,DSM and the election theft,lets not give * what he wants, his speech didn't work, the the bus bombing didn't work, and I know this isn't going to work. We know how this Admin works,lets not go along. Lets push the Plame, DSM and the election theft story even HARDER, because of this little stunt!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Mark Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
91. "Woberts", "Wehnquist"...
Am I hearing things or does GW now have a speech impediment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Mark Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #91
97. n/t
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 08:10 PM by Mister Mark
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
93. Roberts argued for abortion clinic blockade
Clinic blockade case argued at high court

Copyright Times Publishing Co. Oct 7, 1992

The Bush administration renewed its argument before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that federal judges do not have jurisdiction to stop Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups from trying to shut down abortion clinics through blockades and mass demonstrations.

Deputy Solicitor General John G. Roberts Jr. argued that the Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era federal civil-rights law that federal judges across the country have invoked as the basis for injunctions to bar the protests, does not apply to actions motivated by opposition to abortion.

The Ku Klux Klan Act, enacted in 1871 to protect the newly freed blacks in the South from mob violence by white racists, prohibits conspiracies to deprive people of their civil rights.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the law to apply only to conspiracies aimed at a particular group or "class" of people and motivated by a "discriminatory animus" against that class.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/54277246.html?MAC=1...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aresef Donating Member (270 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #93
187. Wow, this guy makes slime seem prestigious.
What a snake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wabbajack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
94. Who voted agaisnt him in the commitee?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNicholson Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #94
108. Larry King on CNN said Schumer did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
95. so he has only been a judge for 2 years and asshole picks him for USSC?
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 08:18 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
fucking chimp doesn't know ANY qualified people for ANY positions!

GOD HELP ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mister Mark Donating Member (125 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
98. "the institutions of our democracy"
Did ya hear that? That comment was a nod to fundies to say, "Don't worry. I won't let the fags get married to each other."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onefreespiritedchick Donating Member (846 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
99. We are simply screwed.!
Another depressing day in history.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
102. I hope the DEMS keep focused on the COURT instead of Rovegate,
cause Fitzgerald is doing a fine job without any interruptions.

Without party involvement we may get a decent case.

SO KERRY and HILLARY.....keep your damn noses out of it,
Rovegate doesn't need to go to a repuglican congress!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
103. He looks like a teacher
Who wants to change the law. A wolf in sheeps clothing. Well, there goes abortion rights. Bush is an asshole. A total and complete fucking asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
106. fasten your seat belts folks
We're in for one of the bumpiest rides of our lives!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
109. I think the Rove scandal, and bad numbers prevented bush from
picking someone agreeable to the Roy Moore faction of the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #109
176. I was thinking along the same lines
I was expecting much worse, actually. I'm not understanding how everyone knows how bad the guy is, when no one knows much about him yet. I want to wait and see how the Dems I respect repond to the selection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #176
192. The guy is a partisan and should be opposed, but he is not as bad
as I expected. bush had to compromise and speed up the selection, that in itself is a victory, but we need to dig in a fight to make sure this guy is not a theocrat or corporatist. I am pretty sure he is a corporatist, and some things I have read makes me think he leans in the direction of a Theocrat, but not sure yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nwliberalkiwi Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
114. Screwed Again
The Democrats will roll over and allow the country to be screwed again. Watch the Repukes calling for an up or down vote. Get the coat hangers out girls!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Talismom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #114
144. Never again baby! Except to throw at neocons! n/t
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
115. John G. Roberts Jr., a former deputy solicitor under Kenneth Starr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalismresurgent Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
117. An illegitimate judge product of an electoral fraud
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 08:43 PM by liberalismresurgent
without auditable machines can't and won't be a good judge. enough said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
122. Prediction: Roberts is a straw man. Bush expects him to create dissensio


He was turned down twice for the appellate court. He is so far right that he could shake hands with Adolph.

Mad George put his name up to cause a distraction from Rovegate for the moment. Expect the Dems to create a howl of outrage (I can hope, can't I) and * will eventually withdraw Roberts and substitute Clemons for him and Clemons will go thru without a hitch.

I've heard it said by some intelligent people that * does not want a far right judge on the court, because if that happened he knows that the repugs would lose the congress in '06. Which they might do anyway.

We all know this bunch well enough by now to know that they are the masters of deception. Never believe what they tell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
124. Pro- Corporate Stance more Frightening than Anti Roe one IMHO
He will vote to extend the broad reading of the Constitution that grants Corporations the rights of individuals.

Bad news for The People.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blonndee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #124
131. Gosh, you must never have feared an unwanted pregnancy!
Although his pro-corporate POV is scary too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demo dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
127. He worked for the the Bush campaign in the Florida recount mess in 2000
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 09:08 PM by demo dutch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
129. I just heard Bush on Sydney Radio praising Roberts for his "innerlect".
I hope his intellect is a tad higher than Bush's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
130. Just finished talking with friends at the club. They are pleased as
punch with Roberts, feel he is pro business. They could care less
about the abortion issue, that's an issue for non-wealthy
people. The wealthy will always have access. They laugh at the
average republicans, all they seem to care about them is that they get their vote and that they show up to work for them on time and not too drunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conservdem Donating Member (880 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #130
147. What club?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #147
151. local country club. why? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
132. That's good, he'll only be around for 25-30 years or so..
:crazy:
Thank God Kerry won the election! Yeeeaaaah!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalismresurgent Donating Member (98 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
134. Judge Stevens will soon die
Edited on Tue Jul-19-05 09:15 PM by liberalismresurgent
John Paul Stevens is 85 years old and will retire and/or die soon. Bush will then appoint another conservative, and the cycle continues until we plunge into the point of no return: Orwell's 1984.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bleacher Creature Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #134
139. Not so sure about that.
From what I hear, he's still pretty fit for an 85 year old. Supposedly he still plays a mean game of tennis every day.

Maybe I'm just being delusional, since the idea of Bush getting to replace him is just too scary for words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
135. Bush picks anti-abortion judge for Supreme Court
Bush picks anti-abortion judge for Supreme Court
July 20, 2005 - 11:49AM


US President George Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, John Roberts jnr.
Photo: AP

US President George Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John Roberts jnr as his first nominee for the Supreme Court.

The selection of a rock-solid conservative could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, a senior administration official said.

Mr Bush offered the position to Mr Roberts in a telephone call at 12.35pm on Tuesday after a lunch with the visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.


snip


http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bush-picks-antiabortio...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #135
138. interesting - he said Roe was "settled law"
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."

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sonicx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. He said that because he had no power to change RvW in that court
In the SC, he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKNancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #140
152. Thanks
I figured that out by reading more of DU!
I was really trying to grab on to anything. Feeling really bad about this right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomSpirit Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #135
153. Looks like a wild-eyed child molester to me
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hudi Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #153
179. Testing
Testing. Testing. Does this post work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ordinaryaveragegirl Donating Member (853 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
141. He looks like a creep LOL...
Anyone surprised that * would screw the real majority and pick one of his own? Another open post, another fundie, holy shit, is this guy predictable or what? :roll eyes: Maybe this is Rove's last gasp before he gets his LOL. At any rate, I don't like the looks of this guy (that creepy fundie gaze!), and I hope to hell we fight as hard as we can to try to delay this "cute" little friend of *'s, or bump him, somehow.

In the meantime, as we fight on (2006 right around the corner!), let's definitely keep the focus on Rove, too. After all, there's no way that our "elected officials" should be able to bust Clinton for something PERSONAL, while letting Rove off on full-blown TREASON.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
142. There is no way in hell Dems should confirm this joke. They should not
waste many words on it because the Neaderthal will get the job anyway and they have more important things to deal with. Any Dem voting for this freak should be considered an enemy to the Party since there is ZERO reason to vote for confirmation, just as there was zero reason to vote for Condosleeza or Bolton. They should be completely united in their vote against him...including the DLC corporate appeasers. No dissent but no vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
145. Pro-business! Well unions won't be able to stop jobs from being
shipped to India now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
norml Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
148. John Roberts: Sparse Record Raises Serious Concerns
John Roberts: Sparse Record Raises Serious Concerns


Opinions and argued cases raise doubts about where Roberts stands on protection of Americans constitutional rights and freedoms; Sparse record requires close Senate scrutiny to determine suitability for Court

Federal appeals court Judge John Roberts, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a sparse public record; and several of his judicial opinions and argued cases raise real concerns about his suitability for the Supreme Court, said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas.

It is extremely disappointing that the President did not choose a consensus nominee in the mold of Sandra Day OConnor, said Neas. John Roberts record raises serious concerns and questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues it will be critical for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions. Replacing OConnor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans rights, liberties, and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe.

Roberts was a corporate law firm lawyer for most of his career; where he does have a record, said Neas, Roberts has failed to show a commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights, both in his role as a Deputy Solicitor General and as a judge. Neas called on all senators, regardless of political party, to take the time necessary to carefully review Roberts complete record and insist that Roberts openly and fully discuss his judicial philosophy on important constitutional and legal issues.

Advocating Against Privacy Rights and First Amendment Protections
As Deputy Solicitor General during the first Bush administration, Roberts tried to convince the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in a case that didnt even directly concern that issue. The case, Rust v. Sullivan, dealt with a rule prohibiting federally funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with patients, not the validity of Roe, which protects a womens constitutional right to reproductive freedom. Nevertheless, Roberts brief proclaimed that e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled and that the Courts ruling that a woman has a fundamental right to make her own reproductive choices about abortion has no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.


snip


http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19265
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Singular73 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
157. Relax....this guy is a corporatist.
The Christian right will be severly disappointed in this guy.

I don't think he is anything to fear.

Remember -- the Bush crime family is not really fundy. They are just out to make money.

Better this guy than, say, Ashcroft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danmel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
160. The only upside is that it will be easier to fight a white guy
than a woman or a Latino. But this is not good news. I hope the Democrats show a little resolve and backbone here- but I'm not counting on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
161. Wow, this guy is WAY out there on the wing
Jesus, this guy is a Bircher. Say good-bye to privacy, the environment, reproductive rights, labor unions, and most everything else that made this country great. Say hello to Nazi Germany.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
164. It's the white Slappy Thomas
Ultra-partisan, right-wing, sparse record. I wonder if he's got a porn collection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mongo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #164
193. We can only hope he does...
Not that the guy has a good track record on the first amendment. From this mornings AVN article about him:

expanded role for religion in public schools. In one case, he co-authored a government amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court, in which he argued that public high schools should be allowed to conduct religious ceremonies as part of a graduation program, a position rejected by the Supreme Court. In the other, the government argued that barring a religious group from meeting on school grounds violates the Equal Access Act, while granting access does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court agreed with the government's position.

Roberts also co-authored a brief arguing that the 1989 Flag Act did not violate the First Amendment. Two Americans had been prosecuted for burning the U.S. flag in violation of the Act, but both charges were dismissed on the grounds that the law violated the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The government's brief argued for the Court to treat flag burning like "obscene words" and "defamatory statements" and allow the government to ban it for the common good, but the Supreme Court disagreed 5-4, holding the statute unconstitutional. Roberts' phraseology in the brief strongly suggests that he has little respect for sexual speech.


More - (warning not work friendly) http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Article...

Couple that with some strong view opposing Roe vs Wade, and the country is headed down the tubes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
170. And he's a philaderer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
171. All white guys look alike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sabien Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #171
173. Damn - I never noticed, but you're right
My first impression was that he could be Jeff Gannon/Gukert's older brother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
172. At first glance - he doesn't look nearly that bad.
What if the dems decided to not fight it at all?

Wouldn't that put a crimp in the repukes EXPECTED way we were to act?

Another choice could be alot worse, IMO.

This is one where we could really not fight it at all, so when Rhenquist retires and they appoint someone like Gonzo or Moore, then we fillibuster the hell out of it till bunkerboy's term is ended and there is no way they can say were just fillibustering for the hell of it, which is exactly what you know they will do.

I say give it to him - make them all choke with surprise - and re-focus on impeachment and the plame treason scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
osaMABUSh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #172
175. Right, Bush wanted a fight to deflect from Rovegate/DSM
I say confirm as quickly as possible so we can focus on gettting rid of Rove, Libby, Cheney and ultimately impeachment of Shrub.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jurassicpork Donating Member (435 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
174. I just found this on Salon.
For those of you who don't have a site pass, get a temporary one and read the article. It's at http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog= (thanks to Mags at http://mags25.blogspot.com / for the link).

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Davdog Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
177. How will Senators that voted
For his nomination to the Appeals court, explain their resistance to him going to the Supreme Court... He got a unanimous Sentate vote for the appeals court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
181. One good thing!
In addition, Mr. Roberts has devoted much of his time to pro bono work. For instance, he represented a class of District of Columbia residents receiving welfare benefits, arguing that a particular change in eligibility standards that resulted in a termination of welfare benefits without an individual hearing denied class members procedural due process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
182. Of course he wasnt going to pick a moderate woman...
or even a conservative woman.

To quote Bugs Bunny:

Of course, you know, this means WAR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
184. WAG THE SCOTUS! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BostonH Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #184
185. Just sent off emails to...
...My senators, as well as the senate leadership of both parties.

From PFAW:

John Roberts
What we know about John Robert's record as Deputy Solicitor General and as a judge shows a troubling lack of concern for the fundamental civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. Americans deserve a justice who will protect our rights and freedoms. Serious questions must be addressed before Robert's nomination to the nation's highest court can be evaluated properly.

Some alarming aspects of Robert's record they must consider include:

Reproductive and Privacy Rights: Roberts urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade while arguing before the Court as Deputy Solicitor General in a case that did not even directly concern that issue. His brief plainly states that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Separation of Church and State: Roberts argued against clear First Amendment protections for religious liberty and in favor of officially sponsored school prayer at graduation ceremonies before the Supreme Court, which rejected his argument.

Environmental Protections: As a judge, Roberts suggested in a dissent that the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional as applied to a California development case.

Veteran Protections: Roberts argued American POWs tortured in Iraq during the Gulf War should not be able to utilize federal courts to pursue their claims.

Excessive Arrest Procedures: Roberts ruled against a 12-year old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation.
Your Senators need to hear from you today--there must not be a rush to confirm John Roberts until all the facts are in! Call and write your Senators to demand that they fulfill their constitutional obligations of advice and consent - our rights hang in the balance!

--Your Allies at People For the American Way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BostonH Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #185
186. http://www. savethecourt .org/ WriteTheSenate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darth Yankee Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
189. It's Official...
This is the whitest guy I have ever seen in my life. I first heard the annoucement on the radio and after hearing what his past educational and judicial history was and also him talking and thanking the BARBARAs and JACKs in his family I could feel the WASPiness seeping through the speakers in my car. Lord he is white.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darth Yankee Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #189
190. Oh yea...
I'm also really glad to be in these forums!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #190
194. welcome to DU n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brianboru Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
195. We have GOT to start winning elections again.
Or it just gets worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #195
197. That will be tough. We liberals, by nature of our high intelligence and
good looks will always be out doing things, being pursued by the
opposite sex, and rising in our careers and enjoying the spoils.
While conservatives, by nature of their pessimistic life attitudes,
mohawk hair styles, rabid church attendance, overweight and slovenly
physical appearances, will have nothing to do except go online to a Free republic website and whine about how life is unfair to them.

Liberals, by nature, are self-confident and forward-looking, thus
have no need to anchor the world in a make-believe past.

Conservatives will always be more inclined to stand in long lines
to vote since they really are unlikely to be getting ready to addend glitzy parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brianboru Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #197
199. So why are you wasting time on a political website?
Go get fucked. That will save the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #199
201. I love the intelligent chit chat here! So refreshing to be among
educated liberal thinkers. Quite stimulating actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demo dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
198. As a Floridian I'm disgusted that Roberts advised Jeb during the recount!
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 07:21 PM by demo dutch
Nominee John Roberts gave Gov. Jeb Bush (very quietly) critical advise on how the Florida Legislature could constitutionally name George W. Bush the winner at a time when Republicans feared that if the recount were to continue the courts might force a different choice.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID ...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olddad56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
200. How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a light
How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a light bulb?


The answer is TEN:


1. one to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed,


2. one to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed,


3. one to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb,


4. one to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for darkness,


5. one to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Haliburton for the new light bulb,


6. one to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner "Light bulb Change Accomplished",


7. one administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally "in the dark",


8. one to viciously smear #7,


9. one surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along,


10. and finally(and most important) one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #200
202. and another one to use all of his fingers to count! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC