How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Justice John Roberts Roundtable   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Justice John Roberts Roundtable

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


0 posted 07-19-2005 09:04 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Ok.  Now that President Bush has informed us of his first pick for Supreme Court Justice to replace Justice O'Conner, let the bruhaha begin.  Pros, cons, whathaveya.  Try to keep it civil and fair, as much as can be expected I guess, and please show respect and civility to others who participate in this thread.


Have at it.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


1 posted 07-19-2005 10:39 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju


He is statis quo... aperantly...,.

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


2 posted 07-20-2005 11:27 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat



quote:
I took some time to research of this man's positions throughout his career, and found three noticeable facts:

*****

1) While working as a counsel in the White House and as a former deputy solicitor for Ken Starr, Roberts supposed a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and would have resegregated public schools.

2) He made strongly anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women to and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots.

3) As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

*****

With this said, one message has been made loud and clear tonight; he would rather prefer to divide the country rather than unite it.

In light of this, I believe it appropriate the Democrats should unite and oppose this extreme-toned nomination.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa



Hope you don't mind, Noah.  I went and copied your comments here to the relevant thread for discussing this Supreme Court pick.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


3 posted 07-20-2005 11:33 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Personally, I'm rather impressed by his record.  I mean, how many lawyers have won as many oral arguments before the Supreme Court?  27 wins out of 39.  True, he made oral arguments against Affirmative Action and Abortion, but I'd really like to see the context of those cases before passing judgement.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


4 posted 07-20-2005 01:21 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Look, I also want to make it clear in light of my previous comment on this topic that though I do believe the Democrats are justified to stall the nomination if they have to in that this is a confrontational nominee in my heart, that he should get a fair hearing which is timely and balanced.

I just strongly believe Roberts here will be no O'Connor; he will be no consensus voice on the court, he will be more of a divider than a uniter. And apart from Roberts and his positions himself, I believe it sends out a strong message from Bush himself; he seems more loyal to his inner circles than to mainstream America at large.

I've heard many out there already who predict he'll have no problem being confirmed because of his short amount of time on the bench.

However, I believe, on the contrary, that's EXACTLY what can turn up the opposition to the nomination; the controversy surrounding his short time on the bench, along with his record as a lawyer for the Reagen and Bush Sr. administrations, along with private practices.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

According to this source, this isn't another Souter we're talking about, but rather a most often inflexible conservative who'll probably be counted on to immediately overturn landmarks which a majority of Americans support like abortion rights and affirmative action, and, in addition, as the Federalist Society has aimed to do, which he was part of, reverse the trend of civil rights era achievements of America.

I will leave it there for now, as I'd like some further investigation to be done so as to not rush ahead, but I hope you can see what my primary concerns here are.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


5 posted 07-20-2005 01:43 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Being a member of the Federalist Society means little.  Even the more liberal Justices still attend meetings at the Federalist Society, since they argue and discuss LAW with other judges and lawyers, those on the right, those on the left, those dead center.  The way you equate it is akin to Roberts being part of some type of cabal aimed at reverting our society to the Feudal System.
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


6 posted 07-20-2005 01:51 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

I am concerned with his past court actions with regards to environmental cases. He is bright, and an effective detail-oriented arguer. He has already come down against the general populace in some critical environmental cases. Because he is efficient and a good attorney, he has actually made it more difficult for the ordinary citizen and concerned groups to challenge government's environmental rulings. While some may see that as a plus, I do not. It bothers me that in this, as well as other areas, he could push the court further to the right than is healthy for all of us.
I think he was chosen because he has won a lot cases without a lot of fanfare, has support from many Republicans and some Democrats, and doesn't appear to be as controversial as some other prospective choices. I think Bush expects an easy OK.
Once on the bench, judges often rise to a higher standard, going beyond party lines, often voting very differently than what people expected. I can only hope that no matter who gets onto the bench, they will judge fairly, without an eye towards their party affiliations or who nominated them to serve the American public.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


7 posted 07-20-2005 02:03 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Though he might have put some of himself into his oral arguments, he did what any lawyer worth his salt would do: argue effectively for his/her client.  Those who fail in this regard shouldn't even be clerks in the Judicial system, irrespective of any personal political leanings.

That won't stop certain Democratic Senators though, as they've already stated that failure to fully answer any and all questions will result in a stall/filibuster.  Of course, nobody really knows the standard of 'fully answer' except for those particular Senators.  I do have a feeling Justice Ginsberg will be discussed, as she quite failed to answer any and all questions, claiming 'prejudgement', which is a valid answer, and still won confirmation.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


8 posted 07-20-2005 04:22 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Noah, if those two examples you gave out of his sterling record cause you to claim that the Democrats should unite against him, then you are giving a perfect example of why Democrats WILL unite against him - or why they would unite against any nominee Bush offered and it has nothing to do with the nominee. They will oppose him until they feel that public opinion is overwhelmingly against them and then they will back off.

You notice I said two examples because Ruth Ginsberg also stated publicly for the record she felt Roe vs Wade was wrong so, if you haven't used that against her, you are not entitled to use it against him.

The Democrats and the media are furious that Bush sneaked one in umder their radar and that the one he sneaked in actually is a good, qualified candidate. It's going to be fun watching them make fools of themselves trying to discredit him...I'm getting the popcorn ready!
Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


9 posted 07-20-2005 04:40 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

no popcorn and beer celebrations just yet, Mike. LOL, is this another polarizing lens issue? Yes, but if everyone keeps focus on issues and not personalities? It could be a wonderful exercise in how our government (not to mention ourselves) could actually move forward a step without some name-calling gridlock. I am not standing in favor of this particular choice, but ? probably none of Bushie's other choices would have been on my list either.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


10 posted 07-20-2005 06:33 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

quote:
Yes, but if everyone keeps focus on issues and not personalities? It could be a wonderful exercise in how our government (not to mention ourselves) could actually move forward a step without some name-calling gridlock.

Great observation but what are the chances of that happening?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


11 posted 07-20-2005 06:49 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

slim and none....and slim just left town.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


12 posted 07-20-2005 07:16 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I'm not surprised at all of the selection Bush made. As much as I hoped he'd prove me wrong and select a moderate voice, I found it most likely he'd reward his most inner circles with a hard-line conservative nominee, which is precisely the case here. With that said, I don't believe nothing was really snuck under the Democrats in terms of expectations. There was just a lot of wishful thinking on the part was all.

The Democrats most likely already have a huge challenge ahead of them in working to defeat the nomination should the investigation find some more startling extreme means he's taken before considering when he had a quite welcoming gesture by the U.S Senate in 2003 to his entry into the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In addition, in light of that very weak compromise the two parties made right before the Frist "nuclear option" battle on judicial nominees, the Democrats never clearly explained what they meant in the agreement by "extreme cases" as the only cases they'll use the filibuster, and they may have a hard time convincing if possible that this is one of those cases.

However, there is indeed a great difference in responsibility between a Circuit Court and the Supreme Court, where you interpret the law much more from the former and under the latter you actually often make law. And someone with controversial positions such as these, regardless of his own achievements, deserves some thorough consideration and analysis.

I believe if the Democrats keep mentality on positions more than on the record itself, which admittingly is quite fair enough, they can make a strong case that will persuade the American people that he's a bit out of touch with mainstream America's desires and values. If they stick to the former, they've already lost. If they really consider the positions he's taken on many important issues, I feel they may get somewhere, and the American public will be convinced that they should be justified in working to defeat the nomination.

It'll indeed be quite a contentious next few months. I believe at the moment Roberts will most likely be confirmed by October, but in terms of public opinion, we must remember this sort of challenge can be a setback to either party according to a recent Gallup poll, which says on one end that 4 in 5 Americans believe it is very or somewhat likely that the Democrats will attempt to block the nomination for inappropriate political reasons, yet there's also the 2 in 3 who believed that Bush was very likely to appoint someone to the court who would let his or her religious beliefs inappropriately influence his or her legal decisions, as well as the slight majority who believe should the  Democrats oppose a nomination based on disagreements of important issues that the Democrats should work to defeat the nomination rather than vote to confirm the nominee.

This making "fools of themselves" can go either way I feel. If the Democrats make their case on his own record, they'll indeed end up looking foolish. But if they make a case on important positions he stands like Roe v. Wade, which a 2-to-1 majority approximately believes shouldn't be overturned, and present how he can be confrontational in light of such things, they may make an important point that he is a dividing figure rather than uniting one and may strengthen the Democrats' point on this administration.

I want the democratic process/investigation to run smoothly so until we learn more, I prefer to keep quiet here, but, again, I hope you recognize and identify where my concerns rest on this sort of nomination.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


13 posted 07-20-2005 07:44 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I like him, My dad is a lawyer and I respect that he has done all that he has done. amazing.

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


14 posted 07-20-2005 08:20 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Um, Noah?  The Judicial Branch should NEVER make law.  That is the job of the Legislative Branch.  That's what legislators do...they legislate, make laws.  The Judicial Branch interprets the law, ruling whether or not it is Constitutional.  The Supreme Court is not the law making body, that's Congress.  Just like Circuit Courts, the Supreme Court interprets law.  The main difference between them is that the Supreme Courts rulings are absolute.  Not much can change them except for Judicial Review from within the Supreme Court.

Again.  Legislative: make law.  Executive: sign law.  Judicial: interpret law.  That's called Checks and Balances.  And so ends our Governmental lesson for the day.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


15 posted 07-20-2005 10:50 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I have defended child molesters and individuals charged with murder.  That does not mean my personal ideology is to condone child molestation or murder.  It means I was doing my job.  When I was a defense attorney, the cops thought I was a scum bag defense attorney. As prosecutor, I received our state's prosecutor of the year award.  My personal ideology did not change.

If you work for the government, amazingly enough, you are expected to put forth the government's position.  Rogers worked for the government.  The reaction of the "left" pretty well establishes the fact that the President could have nominated Teddy Kennedy and Kennedy would have been labled a tad to the right of Attila the Hun.

Judge Rogers while a private attorney represented some pretty liberal causes in his cases as well as some conservative.  The far right probably has as much or more to worry than the left other than this is an opportunity to bash Bush by the far left.

Sandra Day O'Connor is now viewed by the left as the epitome of a good Republican appointed judge, although Suter more probably fits the bill.  But O'Connor was viewed in the same light prior to her confirmation by the left as Rogers is being viewed now.

The Washington establishment "left" other than politicians making names for themselves or running for office like Rogers.  He is one of the "in" group.
If you graduate from Harvard Law, then you are not taught by the Institute of John Birch.  Other than attempted political bashing which appears to be the primary and sole function of the left, the right realistically is the group that should and in all likelihood be the section of the political spectrum that will be disappointed.

Everyone wants a judge who will not legislate and interpret the law.  At least that is what they say.  The two Supreme Court Judges who do that are Scalia and Thomas.  What the majority of people want is not a a strict constructionalist, but someone who decides cases the way they want them decided.  It certainly wasn't O'Connor who does not legislate (yeah, aint that right), who quite honestly, it would be hard to tell what her judicial philosophy was other than being in the middle and an incrementalist for social change.  

The problem is we get our highest judges out of a very select segment of the legal/policital community. ie Harvard although we have made a few concessions to Stanford and they almost always have done their clerkships with the Supreme Court which means they have not functioned in the real world outside of the Washington mentality.

Bash away Left, I suppose you have to do something with your time.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


16 posted 07-21-2005 12:40 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Noah:

quote:
2) He made strongly anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women to and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots.

3) As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."


Reiterating what Tim wrote, in both circumstances, Roberts was serving as a lawyer (i.e., he was arguing the positions of others in a court of law).  Are you suggesting that everything a lawyer says in court reflects what they believe personally?  It's not the lawyer's job to express their personal opinion in court ... it's their job to represent their client(s).

Second, get your hands on a copy of Governor Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania.  Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in which she pretty much said that, had we known in the 1970s what we knew in the 1990s regarding prenatal development, Roe v. Wade would have had a different outcome (i.e., it is tantamount to bad law).  Nevertheless, she argued that, because women relied on the Roe v. Wade ruling for 20 years, O'Connor voted to "let the decision stand" (a legal doctrine called "stare decisis").

Personally, I'm not sure whether I like the nominee or not.  In truth, we know very little about him.  He could be another Scalia or Thomas, but he could also be another Souter or O'Connor.

Jim
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


17 posted 07-21-2005 01:45 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

"Other than attempted political bashing which appears to be the primary and sole function of the left, the right realistically is the group that should and in all likelihood be the section of the political spectrum that will be disappointed."

Please Tim, like the right didn't follow precisely that confrontational strategy the previous decade.

The GOP blocked at least 60 of Clinton's nominees from ever getting an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor during the 90's (in 55 cases, even blocked them from having hearings, 10 never getting a vote in the Judiciary Committee) such as those of Paez and Berzon. Bill Frist himself was among 14 Republican senators to sustain the Paez filibuster, who now claims it's all wrong and such and must be stopped.

In all, 102 Clinton nominees were never confirmed within Clinton's eight years virtually in the background, where within Bush's first four-and-a-half here, only ten have been been unconfirmed, upfront and in an honest fashion. Apparently bipartisan support on more than 95% of his nominees just isn't good enough for the administration.

There are a number of things that the Democratic Party does that turn me off, which is why I just say I am NOT a Democrat and am just a Democrat-leaning independent like Jim Jeffords in Vermont. But on this particular sort of situation, you should be thanking the Democrats for much of that bipartisan support they have offered a vast majority of his nominations, which I wish that sort of attitude could have been infused more during the previous decad, where Clinton only managed a success rate around 75%.

I believe I have a most justified right to be upset here and to reflect with deep consideration on this sort of nomination's credentials. If a sort of effort like the nuclear option had actually been implemented, such debate and discussion would be severely weakened or lost and there'd be dishonest, forced votes left and right, that kind of dialogue that we're about to open up with Roberts as we learn more about his credentials, where he's come from and have some fair questions asked.

I hate more than anything else in the world to very often have to question and critique Bush and the administration (which you call Bush-bashing) in which I really do like to try and make an effort to seek common ground, but when a party is being frequently confrontational and out of control, I feel I am most justified to speak out, even when I'm well often they rarely like to listen.

As I said, I will hear what he has to say and learn more of what he believes and where he stands, as he deserves a fair, bi-lateral hearing, and all I was saying earlier is that from what I do know of his positions, I find deep concern in them and I believe the Democrats are justified in their right to work to defeat the nomination if it is concluded a strong number of his positions are outside the mainstream scope.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


18 posted 07-21-2005 06:03 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I only have one comment;

quote:


He (the president -- note how the strict constructionist will argue that the president must be a he) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

U.S. Constitution
Article 2
Section 2
Clause 2
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


19 posted 07-22-2005 01:44 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

"Please Tim, like the right didn't follow precisely that confrontational strategy the previous decade."

Got ya Noah, they have a term for it in the legal community, "Borking" someone.  Used quite successfully not only against Bork, but Pickering as well.  Not quite so well against Thomas, but the point was still made.  ER... excuse me...  wrong side.

On it's face that statement seems to condone the practice as long as you can convince yourself the other side is as bad, you are entitled to the same right to misuse the system.  I know Justice Ginsburg was hammered pretty hard.  And she wouldn't even answer the question how she would vote on Roe v. Wade.  


  


Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


20 posted 07-22-2005 03:02 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

from a news article this afternoon CS Monitor:

One sign of the nomination’s momentum came Thursday. The so called ‘Gang of 14” – the bipartisan group of senators who produced a truce in the battle over judicial nominations – met and emerged to say there was agreement that Roberts’ record did not meet the group’s threshold for a Democratic filibuster.

It is not unusual that the administration has gotten off to a fast start in selling Judge Roberts, notes Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. At Friday’s Monitor breakfast, Kennedy said, "historically there is always a honeymoon period for the nominee. That’s the way it has worked in the past and is working at this time. He is obviously a very appealing individual and he has impressive credentials. Having said all that, he is pretty much …a blank slate in terms of whose side he is going to be on."

Any hopes Democrats have of blocking the Roberts nomination are tied to how Roberts explains himself to the American people at confirmation hearings this fall.

"At the end of the day this is a nomination that will stand or fall on Judge Roberts’ response to the difficult questions with respect to his core beliefs and judicial philosophy and, at the same time, whether the administration provides all relevant documents related to his public service," Henderson said. "Thorough hearings are not a strategic ploy, they are a constitutional imperative.”

and this from CNN:

Brains, credentials and personality are important in a Supreme Court nominee. But they are not as important as a nominee's substantive views. We may rationally prefer a nominee who is less brilliant, but more liberal, over a conservative star like Roberts. Intelligence is not a trump card -- even on the Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the Senate's job is not to decide whether Roberts is a great lawyer and a good guy, but to test the soundness and integrity of his vision of the Constitution and the Supreme Court on which he hopes to sit.

And going through this process is not merely appropriate, it is a necessary part of national debate over our legal heritage that is long overdue.
Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-10-2001
Posts 10765
United States


21 posted 07-22-2005 06:14 PM       View Profile for Larry C   Email Larry C   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Larry C's Home Page   View IP for Larry C

I think I want Tim's business card. Well said sir.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


22 posted 07-23-2005 12:22 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

We do not want activist judges who legislate and decide cases based up their political leanings.  

Instead, we want judges who will decide cases based upon our own political leanings. Then they are not legislating nor activist.  Darn those activist judges who decided "Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education"


jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


23 posted 07-25-2005 07:57 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

LOL, Tim.  How cynical of you.

With Brown v. Board, it simply took 170+ years for the Court to figure out what "due process" means.  Thankfully, the Civil Rights Act cleared up much of more than a century of confusion.

Jim
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


24 posted 08-10-2005 11:41 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

And now NARAL is running a smear ad on Roberts, citing a brief he submitted in a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling.  NARAL is stating that Robert's opinion on abortion is clearly shown by his brief, which he filed of his own violition.

Ignore the fact that Roberts was one of the best debators before the Supreme Court.  Ignore the fact that he was selected by the SG under President H.W. Bush.  Ignore the fact that the root of the case was about state vs federal rights dealing with civil disobedience and protests.  Ignore the fact that Roberts argued that prosecution of anti-abortion activists should not be tried federally under an 1870's law about the KKK, but by state laws.  Again, ignore state vs federal.  Ignore the fact that all those cited in the Supreme Court case were successfully prosecuted in state courts after the Supreme Court ruling.  Ignore the fact that Robert's brief was filed several years before the clinic bombings cited in the ad.

Aside from all those ignored issues, NARAL's ad is chocked full of truth [sic].

Had to edit.  Got Attorney General and Solicitor General mixed up.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Justice John Roberts Roundtable   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors