Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

To the sky-is-falling crowd re: Roberts ...

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
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:01 PM
Original message
To the sky-is-falling crowd re: Roberts ...
Make your case against him and tell me why he should be opposed. BTW, if you want to convince anyone, kindly prove your assertions. I have not yet heard a Democratic Senator to come out in opposition, probably because no hearings have been held and they're not comfortable jumping to conclusions.

So ... are you up for it or are all these sky-is-falling posts the product of paranoid speculation. I am personally open to persuasion although otherwise, I think I might withhold judgment until the hearings are held.

But by all means ... make your case. Not one-liners or speculation or assertions. A real case against this guy.

:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. My case: He was picked by W
Sorry, guess that is a one-liner. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. W will pick any supreme court judge so that will get us no where
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 06:09 PM by dmordue
I agree with your premise but the constitution means W will make the pick. Obviously W will also pick a conservative. If you want better options America will have to make a better choice in their leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. If withdrawn, Bush would likely pick an even more acceptable centrist
for sure confirmation. A known, transparent quantity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. These sources sum up my problems with him ->
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Son of California Donating Member (467 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. DUDE, he's on record
saying Roe v. Wade was the wrong decision and should be changed.......

just that on its own is enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fiona Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. He's also on record saying
that roe should NOT be overturned, and in that case, he was speaking for himself, not his client (Bush I's justice department).

It's not a clear-cut thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. The problem with that statement is the fact that as a member of
the Supreme Court, he won't be charged with following what has already been Supreme Court ruling. He will be in a position where he can set a new Supreme Court ruling. An entirely different thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fiona Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Perhaps
but I think anybody making definitive statements about what Roberts would do re: Roe v Wade is speaking from ignorance.

I don't know how he'd vote. Neither do you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. I'm pointing out an obvious fact.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 08:06 PM by cornermouse
Your post doesn't even deal with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fiona Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. What would you like me to deal with?
He said a specific thing when representing a client (the Bush I government) and another thing when speaking for himself.

You suppose that he will change his views when he's on the court. You may be right. You may be wrong. My point was that neither of us knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. prove that ...
From my reading, he was asked that during hearings for the DC circuit and he said that Roe was settle, established law and that he respected that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. Actually, that's not exactly what he said.
He said it was the law of the land and that there was nothing in his personal opinions to suggest he would have problems ruling on that precedent.

It was a pretty well-parsed, and somewhat semantically suspect answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. He was advocating for his client's position.
Had he not done so, he would have violated the canons of ethics. I don't want him confirmed either, but we're going to need more than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. I am attempting to get info collected here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In the meantime I emailed this DU post to Sen Reid.

... this article by law professor Bruce Ackerman, on how the Dem senators should handle questioning Bush's SC nominees:


"The president has repeatedly promised us justices like Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, and I propose to take him at his word. If we simply take the trouble to read their opinions, it becomes evident that a Court dominated by Thomases and Scalias would launch a constitutional revolution on a scale unknown since the New Deal.

The Senate should also take the president seriously. Bush has already told us the kind of justices he wants, and if he has had a last-minute change of heart, it should be up to individual nominees to convince us that they are not in the Thomas-Scalia mold.

Placing this burden on the nominee permits senators to define a more decorous and consequential role for themselves in giving 'advise and consent'. Rather than browbeating nominees, senators should take the president at his word, unless the candidate convinces them otherwise. They should repeatedly confront nominees with the opinions of Thomas and Scalia, and ask them to state, clearly and without equivocation, whether they agree or disagree. This approach would focus public attention on the main issue:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironman202 Donating Member (608 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. once again dems have to settle for
"It could have been worse"
"It was the best we could do at the time"
"Given the circumstances, he's not that bad"
"We'll get them next time, Tiger"


Phhhhfffftttt!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Well, instead of saying disparaging things, why don't
you provide information or solutions? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterLiberal Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. WE DONT HAVE TO SETTLE
We have that other option that so many here are afraid to even think about:

Fighting for what we believe in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Because he is a partisan political activist
and the Supreme Court is not the appropriate place for someone who is so entangled with the Bush administration, including helping Bush figure out how not to count the votes in the FL 2000 Recount.

He is/was a registered lobbyist who spent $80000 helping Bush get elected in 2004 and then was rewarded with a spot on the Bush Transition Team.

Do you need more reasons?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterLiberal Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. Uh, because he's conservative?
Is that good enough?

I know you want more than one line but I'm sure if he were liberal, that one line would be good enough for us to support him, right?

If that's not good enough, then think 30+ years of a conservative Justice on SCOTUS.

And btw, we're not "the sky is falling" crowd.

We're the "We're Still Liberal Democrats Who Ain't Rolling Over" crowd.

I'd like to see more time spent on attacking Roberts instead of Democrats who oppose him.

It would be a much more efficient use of time, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. I think
a lot of the flip-out is based upon the strongly-held conviction that Bush should not, under any circumstances and for any reason, be allowed to affect the high court. Period. End of sentence.

I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, translating the desire into an actual brick wall against appointments like this is going to be a supremely tall order unless and untill we win a lot of seats in the midterms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterLiberal Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. So, what...
Does that mean that we just roll over for every nominee he sends our way?

What good is the threat to filibuster if we never USE IT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. There's a good bit of truth in what you wrote.
No one that Bush will appoint will satisfy me. Ever. But he gets to pick. So far as the mid-terms, the new Congress won't convene until January 2007. FTR, that is a long fucking time. ((sigh))

With the election itself sixteen months away ... I reiterate: that's a long fucking time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Corgigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. He's a sleeper
He's part of the RW sleeper cells. He NOT suppose to have any written evidence against him.

Go ahead, trust him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterLiberal Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Some here think
that it's not worth fighting over.

I want those Democrats to talk to me a year from now if he's confirmed and tell me they did the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
17. He's only been a judge for two years, Pepperbelly.
Seriously, is Bush saying he couldn't find a better nominee for the SUPREME COURT other than a man who has been a judge for only two years?

On that basis alone he shouldn't be anywhere near there. He is an inexperienced partisan. Danger, Will Robinson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fiona Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Many great justices
never served as judges. There are other ways to serve in the legal profession short of being a judge. Earl Warren was never a judge. Rehnquist was never a judge. Lewis Powell hadn't been a judge. In fact, fewer than half of ALL supreme court justices were sitting judges at the time of their appointment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/politics/14scotus.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Really?
I didn't know that! Hmm.

I'm not really comfortable with that, at all, but at least now I can be less hysterical about it, seeing as it isn't unusual, apparently!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
31. I think his charm to Bush was precisely his relative youth.
If he's healthy, he could affect things until 2030. That's frightening. Bush is going to take the age deeply into consideration no matter who he nominates because he wants his evil to resonate through time stinking up the place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
42. The charm to the Chimp was that this putz worked for George 1....
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. He was in favor of letting Cheney's energy task force meetings...
remain secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
40. That's what it's all about, -- Cheney's energy task force
You nailed it, VelmaD. Everything else is distraction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paula777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
20. Here are some specifics from Move-on
As a corporate lawyer, Roberts threatened:


Community and environmental rights by working to strike down new clean-air rules and filing a brief for the National Mining Association, arguing that federal courts could not stop mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia, even as it devastated local communities.7
Workers' rights by helping Toyota to successfully evade the Americans with Disabilities Act and fire workers for disabilities they suffered over time because of the requirements of their jobs.8

Public interest regulations by helping Fox News challenge FCC rules that prevented the creation of news media monopolies.9

In his short two years as a judge, Roberts has threatened:

Individual rights by rejecting the civil rights claims brought on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who had been handcuffed, arrested and taken away by the police for eating a single french fry in the D.C. Metro.10

Environmental protections when the dissent he wrote on an Endangered Species Act case, had it been in the majority, would have struck the Act down as unconstitutional in many cases, and would have threatened a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections.11

Human Rights by voting to strike down the Geneva Conventions as applied to prisoners that the Bush administration chose to exempt from international law.12


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
21. Seems like this is the first Republican that I've had more issues
with a wife than the man. She seems a bit extreme. But my main concern is what role did Roberts play in Bush's (se)election and is this payback for being a good boy. Hell, the guy's only been a judge for 2 years so seems a bit fishy to me. Otherwise, I think that Edith (the evil one) would have been a lot worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
23. Why would I need to convince you ?
Why would I want to ?

Prove to me you actually have an interest in our rights, not just an interest in using a serious issue to get attention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
24. What about his Federalist Society membership?
Don't Fat Tony and Thomas both belong to that August body?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patty Diana Donating Member (555 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
28. The Heritage Foundation is Licking His Balls_How's that for a
reason to oppose him http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/nr071905a.cf... and the family research foundation are coming all over themselves on shurbs choice to bring America back to her roots say around 1500 http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05G08&v=PRINT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepperbelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. It was a medium good ball licking but one thing jumped out at me ...
This paragraph:

"We are confident that they will do so to allow the new justice to take his seat on the bench by the first Monday of October."

What they are doing is preparing for the nuclear option. That is what these bastards want and boy are we going to be out in the frontiers at that point. All bets are off.

This could be very ugly for all of us. For the life of me, I do not understand why these bastards are so intent upon destroying the Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
29. He's very young to be appointed at
50 years old. He could be with us for a very very long time - possibly thirty years or longer. For a conservative individual who has a record for partisan rightwing beliefs (see all posts above), this is someone to oppose if you were hoping for a moderate to replace SDO.

Not sure why I thought W's meeting with the Dems last week would mean he was at all interested in being a uniter not a divider... what was I thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patty Diana Donating Member (555 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
33. Here's the FEC's records on his political contricutions
Roberts' FEC Files; Gave $1,000 to Bush

I have to say, compared to Clement and Hollan Jones, who gave very little to candidates and PACs, President Bush's actual Supreme Court nominee has doled out some bucks, even donating to Bush.

Let's see what the Democrats do with his FEC records, if anything.
^^^

NewsMeat Records

John G Roberts , 50
judge, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit

Republican $: $3,735
PACs $: $7,450
special in

Contributor Candidate or PAC Amount Date

Roberts, John G. Mr. Jr.
Bethesda, MD 20816
Hogan & Hartson/AttorneyBUSH, GEORGE W (R)
President
BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC.
$1,000
primary08/03/00

ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONLUGAR, RICHARD G (R)
Senate - IN
FRIENDS OF DICK LUGAR INC
$500
primary04/11/00

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$1,100
primary03/08/00

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$975
primary03/30/99

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$235
general10/23/98

ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$500
general06/25/98

ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONRUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR
$750
primary04/15/98

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$975
primary03/11/98

ROBERTS, JOHN
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONRUSTHOVEN, PETER J (R)
Senate - IN
PETER RUSTHOVEN FOR SENATOR
$250
primary12/10/97

ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSONFITZGERALD, PETER G (R)
Senate - IL
FITZGERALD FOR SENATE INC
$500
primary10/29/97

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$925
primary03/18/97

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON L L P
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$925
primary05/25/96

ROBERTS, JOHN G
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/02/95

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/16/94

ROBERTS, JOHN G JR
BETHESDA, MD 20816
HOGAN & HARTSON
HOGAN & HARTSON POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
$850
primary03/12/93 link http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2005_07_19_mpetrelis_arch...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
35. There's plenty to not like..
... but why work yourself into a lather (not u pb)? He IS going to be confirmed, period, end of story.

Worry about something you can actually do something about. This isn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
37. Have you read Skinner's post? It's right near by
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
38. He's an ENEMY of Women, he's Ken Starr's Boy, and he's a Chimp Donor...
The GOP talking-point has been, 'no activist judges." Well, this troll will be legislating from the bench like crazy.

Documented proof is in a thread I posted last night, but couldn't get any takers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Can you think of any reason this guy should be **not** be opposed?????????????? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
41. To the let's roll over once more
and beg them to kick us again crowd. Roberts was involved in the 2000 election theft - www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=vi... - and he opposed legal settlements for American POW's - www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=sh...

Also see Skinner's post -
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=sh...
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 Nov 28th 2014, 07:19 AM
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