Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Time to start your letters on Roberts folks

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:43 PM
Original message
Time to start your letters on Roberts folks
Well, well we now know who the nominee is. This man upheld the detention of a twelve year old, and handcuffing for eating a french frye. He is a Federalist, and our civil rights, per this article from Slate, are at risk

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123055 /


Thank You, Mr. President
Last week, John Roberts wrote Bush a blank check.


Since Sandra Day O'Connor resigned almost three weeks ago, John Roberts has been the Washington, D.C., establishment choice to take her seat on the Supreme Courtamong some Democrats as well as Republicans. As a deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, Roberts wrote a brief arguing that doctors in clinics receiving federal funds shouldn't be able to talk to their patients about abortion (the Supreme Court agreed) and in passing called for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. But some liberals are quick to argue that on the Supreme Court, Roberts would be open to rethinking such right-wing positions. They take comfort in his reputation for being likable and fair-minded.

Roberts may indeed turn out to be a wise, thoughtful, and appealing justice. Tonight when Bush announced his nomination, Roberts talked about feeling humbled, which won him points on TV. But an opinion that the 50-year-old judge joined just last week in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld should be seriously troubling to anyone who values civil liberties. As a member of a three-judge panel on the D.C. federal court of appeals, Roberts signed on to a blank-check grant of power to the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists without basic due-process protections.

-snip-

The opinion Roberts joined, written by Judge A. Raymond Randolph for a unanimous panel (though the third judge, Stephen Williams, expressed a reservation in a concurrence), swallows all of that and then some. The opinion says that Congress authorized the president to set up whatever military tribunal he deems appropriate when it authorized him to use "all necessary and appropriate force" to fight terrorism in response to 9/11. While the president has claimed the authority only to try foreign suspects before the tribunals, there's nothing in the Hamdan opinion that stops him from extending their reach to any other suspected terrorist, American citizens included. This amounts to a free handand one Bush is not shy about extending. The administration has already devised its own tribunals to review its claims that the Guantanamo detainees are all enemy combatants who are not entitled to the international protections accorded to prisoners of war. As of February, 558 hearings had resulted in freedom for only three prisoners. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the legality of these tribunalsa question that Roberts may now help decide.

-snip-

At oral argument, Roberts appeared to recognize some of the weaknesses in the government's stance. In particular, he quizzed Hamdan's lawyers about the Charming Betsy principle of respecting international law. But none of the reservations he appeared to harbor then are reflected in the opinion he joined. So, what does that say about John Roberts? Did he decide that Judge Randolph had it right down the line in Hamdan, or did he sign on to a flawed and sweeping opinion because he was auditioning for the job Bush has now picked him for? Neither prospect is reassuring.

I beg of you don't certify this man. We don't need more radicals in the court.

Sincerely

XXXXXXXXXXX
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. If anything, call your Senators...especially those on the Judiciary
and tell Ms. Feinstein (in my case) to look
more deeply at this guy and what he's supported,
written, advocated for in his legal life.

Tell her you do not support this guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Just did,
with Feinstein I suspect she will vote for a turd if that is what bush nominates. I am to the point that in '06 I will NOT vote for DiFi under any circumstances, I hope teh greens get enough protest votes to get that person in
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I can't believe DiFi has no competition
gads, I'd vote for Nader for CA Senate at
this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meppie-meppie not Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. if it makes you feel better, I say try although I don't think it will
make one lick of difference because the Democrats will do their usual bending over for the repricks and Roberts will be wearing the robe by the end of summer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Any links to John Robert's judicial record as well as his prior
...connections to BushCo.
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 Dec 19th 2014, 04:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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