Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

There's a difference between personal and professional opinion...

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
 
Seeing Red Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:28 PM
Original message
There's a difference between personal and professional opinion...
Before I say anything else, let me just state for the record that I, along with most of you, it seems, believe that it is disturbing that John Roberts thinks that Roe v. Wade was decided "in error." With that said, I also believe that he was being genuine when he said that he accepts Roe as the "settled law of the land."

Any person, whether he is a liberal college student or a Supreme Court Justice, is entitled to hold his or her own personal opinions, whatever they might be. If Roberts dislikes Roe, then let him. The real question is, how will he APPLY the Constitution towards any future decision that may or may not be made regarding that historic case, and THIS is what we should really look at, and here, I do not see any threat to Roe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good luck -- you can't explain this to folks.
But thanks for the effort. :thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. A direct threat, no.
But an effective overturning, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forever Free Donating Member (542 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. I totally agree with you.
I mean, honestly, would there have been ANY nominee we would have NOT hated?

Robert Bork's America is one of "segregation" and zero reproductive freedoms right?

For all we know, Roberts could be the next Souter. And I'm sure Roberts is a decent family man, who like Seeing Red said, would MOST likely separate personal opinion from professional rulings.

So seriously, stop acting like its the end of the world.

With that said....flame away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Any nominee we would have NOT hated?
Probably not. But I sincerely believe that the Democratic party should use all of its power to undermine the Treason Monkey at all times, fight everything he does. I don't care who he nominates for anything--they should be opposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. First Flame
PEACE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AverageJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Self delete
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:15 PM by AverageJoe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. When he said that Roe was decided 'in error' he was working on
a case to try to strike down the decision. That is what he had to do on that job. Lawyers are taught to fight for the side you're hired for - it is the judge or jury's job to make the final decision.

That said, he made the comment that Roe is 'settled law' as a Judge.

VERY IMPORTANT distinction for me. His anti-Roe stance was when he was being paid to be anti-Roe, his pro-Roe stance was when he was being paid to simply be a judge and decide the law.

Anyone that reads Roe can see that it is a well-reasoned opinion. He's a good judge and I'm confident he sees that as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. I must be in the wrong underground!
He's argued that Roe should be overturned. How much is the swamp land? I assume yo have some for sale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. But Roberts doesn't have enough of a record to know
Whether he would always ignore his personal opinions over the law. He may be the next Souter, but then again, he may be the next Scalia, who seemed really reasonable and moderate when appointed, but turned out to be a hard right conservative.

Why, after surviving through 5 years of Team Bush bsing about everything from budgets to WMD to social security does anybody give Smirk the benefit of the doubt any more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. The question is, then, can Roberts separate his personal and professional
opinions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. So if we are starting to hear arguments for Roberts on the abortion
issue saying that he was only arguing for the client, it implies that may not be his personal opinion. That makes it legitimate for Senators to cross-examine him. (I got the impression that Senators may hesitate to want to bring up the issue.)

In the meantime we must know, Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society and was recommended by the Federalist Society with C. Boyden Gray leading the charge. A fair question to ask Fed Soc members is whether any of their members have argued on any law suit or funded any law case that would aid in overturning Roe vs Wade or whether the FS has a collective member position. Somehow, I have a feeling that I know what the answer would be.

The Federalist Society is the backbone of the right wing. There might be wives and former girlfriends of FS members who have had abortions and members may have a touch of pro-choice in their blood, but they know that the maniacal who complete their voting base are passionate and unreasoning abortion haters.

The Fed Soc is determined to rewrite our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
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 Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 04:27 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