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

[Pepperbelly]

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:

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. My case: He was picked by W

Sorry, guess that is a one-liner.:P

[stray cat]

11. W will pick any supreme court judge so that will get us no where

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.

[bigtree]

27. If withdrawn, Bush would likely pick an even more acceptable centrist

for sure confirmation. A known, transparent quantity.

[bloom]

2. These sources sum up my problems with him ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4148864&mesg_id=4148864

[Son of California]

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.

[Fiona]

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.

[cornermouse]

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.

[Fiona]

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.

[cornermouse]

39. I'm pointing out an obvious fact.

Your post doesn't even deal with that.

[Fiona]

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.

[Pepperbelly]

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.

[mattclearing]

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.

[11 Bravo]

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.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I am attempting to get info collected here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4150431&mesg_id=4150431

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:

[ironman202]

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!!!!

[babylonsister]

10. Well, instead of saying disparaging things, why don't

you provide information or solutions? :eyes:

[MisterLiberal]

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.

[DoYouEverWonder]

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?

[MisterLiberal]

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?

[WilliamPitt]

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.

[MisterLiberal]

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?

[Pepperbelly]

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.

[Corgigal]

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.

[MisterLiberal]

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.

[tjdee]

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.

[Fiona]

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.html

[tjdee]

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!

[Pepperbelly]

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.

[VOX]

42. The charm to the Chimp was that this putz worked for George 1....

:puke:

[VelmaD]

18. He was in favor of letting Cheney's energy task force meetings...

remain secret.

[hunter]

40. That's what it's all about, -- Cheney's energy task force

You nailed it, VelmaD. Everything else is distraction.

[paula777]

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

[Booster]

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.

[beam me up scottie]

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.

[BiggJawn]

24. What about his Federalist Society membership?

Don't Fat Tony and Thomas both belong to that August body?

[Patty Diana]

28. The Heritage Foundation is Licking His Balls_How's that for a

reason to oppose him http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/nr071905a.cfm 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

[Pepperbelly]

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.

[rosesaylavee]

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?

[Patty Diana]

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_archive.html#112181755570419005

[sendero]

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.

[Generator]

37. Have you read Skinner's post? It's right near by

[VOX]

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.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1942211&mesg_id=1942211

Can you think of any reason this guy should be **not** be opposed?????????????? :shrug:

[Individualist]

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=view_all&address=104x4148647 - and he opposed legal settlements for American POW's - www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4149836&mesg_id=4149836.

Also see Skinner's post -
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4149836&mesg_id=4149836