Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Judge Roberts is probably a wonderful man and a great lawyer

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:22 PM
Original message
Judge Roberts is probably a wonderful man and a great lawyer
So what? that's not the point.

Let's not buy into the spin that this matters, or allow our representatives to repeat it.

Sure those qualities are important, but they are not more important than what a nominee's opinions and beliefs are, and how he would try to implement those on the SC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. one simple question
Do you believe that Roe V Wade is constitutional?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. one simple answer: yes
It comes from a line of cases that include Eisenstat and Loving v. VA. All of those cases relate to personal autonomy in reproductive, marital and other highly personal matters. Following the logic of those cases it is clear that no due process is sufficient to intrude into such personal matters and therefore, state involvement is necessarily unconstitutional. Note that Roe does not prohibit all abortion regulation, but only that of the first trimester. The second trimester, some regulation is permitted and during the third the state may ban termination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It would be nice to hear him say it under oath
Roe V Wade is a privacy issue

between a woman and her doctor

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. He has a Stepford CV
and two years of being a fed judge doesn't
tell the whole story... the partisan political legal affairs
he participated in, the legal opinions he wrote,
the personal religious POV he brings with him
etc. and no questions have been asked of him on
many other issues that would come before the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. I agree -- but he's been an ADVOCATE most of his professional life
and not an IMPARTIAL judge. He's only been on the bench for 3 years; is he really prepared to be objective on such a grand scale? I feel that the human condition is to favor one side or another, and that impartiality -- overlooking one's natural bias -- is a skill that needs to be learned. It takes time to become a GOOD judge; we don't need a justice doing on-the-job training at the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. It doesn't work that way.
Lawyers do not take their cases to heart. I had no trouble switching from defense to prosecution. Judges around here don't have much trouble switching over from private practice. Besides, judges who have done litigation have a realistic sense of what litigation can accomplish and what it cannot. I prefer judges with private practice experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yah know, we cannot win this.
45 D's vs. 55 R's. We need six of them and every last one of us and that ain't gonna happen. I don't think we can fillibuster this either. The Senate understands that Bush will choose who he wants and will never choose who we want. The question really comes done to this: as an R judge, is he a reasonable choice? I suspect that the answer will be yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Federalist Society is not reasonable
He is a piece in a much larger right wing jigsaw puzzle being constructed to set back this nation by 70 years on EVERY front.

No way should the job of SC Justice be entrusted to someone who is a member of an organization with that strong of an ideology. It is impossible to have that professional detachment required of a quality justice.

You are correct in that we will probably lose. But we shouldn;t just cave into it, and miss the opportunity to make it clear what the stakes really are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Am I right in remembering that the Fed. Society ...
... believes the Federal Govt. is for national defense and not much else?

My biggest concern in all of this is not abortion, but that the court might reinstate Lochner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. They are right wing down the line
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:02 PM by Armstead
Librtarian when it suits the purpose of economic power, yet willing to support big government intrisuion on personal rights of individuals.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.lan...

They operated on two tracks--designed to insure that the Reagan Revolution would well outlast the Reagan Presidency. The first, to reclaim the Federal courts from liberals, swept an array of conservative scholars and judges from law schools and state courts onto the Federal bench: the likes of Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Antonin Scalia, Richard Posner, Sandra Day OConnor, and Anthony Kennedy.

The second track was even more forward looking and involved the apprenticing of a new generation of conservative lawyer-intellectuals-under-30 to the Reagan apparat. This second track required fresh meat, which is where the Federalist Society came in. The founding chapters of the Society were established at Yale, where Bork taught before Reagan nominated him to the bench, and at the University of Chicago, where Scalia was faculty advisor and from whose ranks he would later recruit former student-Federalists to prestigious Supreme Court clerkships. Originally the chapters were little more than a debating circle and comfort station for young conservatives who felt themselves victimized by liberal persecution. The Societys executive director Eugene Meyer recalls of his experience at Yale Law School that "someone was writing fascist on our posters, or taking them down. Then cooler faculty heads channeled our angers and frustrations into organizational activity." Keen self-promoters, they made a mascot of James Madison (on the debatable grounds that he favored decentralized government in his later years) and took the name of Madisons 18th-century Federalist Party as their own.

For the Reaganites running the federal government in the 1980s, the Society was a godsend. Here was a group of hard-charging legal minds committed to a set of principles that could not have been better suited to the judicial implementation of a Republican agenda if Ed Meese had drafted them himself. The Federalists were (and remain) "originalist" in their approach to the Constitution--meaning that they favored strict textual readings that tended to shear back constitutional principles developed during the more liberal Warren Court era. In terms of substantive law, they promoted the conservative mantra of states rights to leach power away from "big government" in Washington. At a deeper intellectual level they tended to be either libertarians (meaning that they opposed government regulation as an intrusion on individual liberty) or devotees of the free-market cult of law and economics (meaning that they opposed government regulation for interfering with "market efficiencies").

<cut>

Naturally, the new Washington establishment snapped up the founding Federalists. The student cadre graduated and went to work in the Reagan White House and Justice Department, and to clerk in the chambers of newly appointed conservative judges. Edward Lazarus, whose recent book, Closed Chambers, momentarily breached the sanctity of Supreme Court manners and procedures, recalls the arrival of 10 young Federalists as clerks in the October 1988 term ("the cabal," they called themselves), who "created a critical mass of ideological conservatives." Lazarus, a "dreaded Lib," clerked for moderate Justice Harry Blackmun, and records how the Cabal ran its own email network. They "obsessively" worked as a "collective mission" to influence conservative justices, notably on death-penalty cases expediting executions, about which one emailed the others: "We need to get our numbers up." Lazarus quoted another cabalist who, venting his rage about the refusal of the Senate to confirm Robert Bork for a seat on the high court, said: "Every time I draw blood, Ill think of what they did to Bork."

Perhaps the networks most far-reaching victory in recent years was a 1999 decision by a Federal appellate panel of DC Circuit judges in a case called American Trucking v. EPA , which stunned clean-air advocates by rolling back EPA standards covering smog and soot. The decision was based on the principle of "non-delegation," a rigid and archaic reading of the Constitution, which holds that Congress retains all legislative authority, but not the power to delegate regulatory power to executive agencies. C. Boyden Gray, a member of the Federalist Societys Board of Trustees, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in American Trucking. Gray was also good enough to share his insights on non-delegation with the Federalist convention in November when he moderated a panel discussion entitled: "The Non-Delegation Doctrine Lives!"

One extraordinary thing about the American Trucking decision was just how well it served private industry at the expense of the public interest. A commentator writing in a Federalist Society newsletter crowed that American Trucking will save industry "in the neighborhood of $45 billion per year." Perhaps that is true--and perhaps industry would save even more money if the courts decide to eliminate, for example, the Food and Drug Administrations jurisdiction over food and drugs. But the social costs would be enormous.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MemphisTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. I knew shrubby would pick a radical to take the heat
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 01:37 PM by MemphisTiger
off of the Plamegate. We will talk about this tool and forget about Rove boy. "Wagging the dog at it's finest" And we'll have to approve this guy who will probably be on the bench for 40 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patcox2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. He shouldn't ever implement his opinions and beliefs as a judge.
He should follow the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. That's exactly right
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 04:36 PM by Armstead
We have to start turning around those claims of "judicial activism" on them.

No judge should implement their opinions and beliefs in that role. But the freepers claim that is what liberals do, while the freepers want to do it in the opposite direction.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. Fascist traitors do not fit the definition of "wonderful man" in a
democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I wouldn;t call him a fascist traitor
His views may be terrible, but the point is this should not be about personal character. Petty personal mudslining gets us nothing.

What can get us something is to focus on what is wrong with the worldview and actions of people like him. And, more important, the impact on average people who are neither fundies nor powerful corporate interests.


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 Wed Oct 22nd 2014, 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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