John C. Roberts (n/t)

[ QUOTE ]
I thought "most qualified" should trump any other considerations. Oh, yeah, this is Felix; sorry.
************************************************
Well 'qualified' jurist have:
*Restricted political speech 60 days before an election (McCain-Feingold)
*Granted Orwellian eminent domain powers to local govt where they can seize private propery for PRIVATE USE.
*Usurped state rights by claiming that medical marijuana; grown in California, perscribed in California, and used in California falls under the interstate commerce clause of the US constitution.

If the fools that supported these illegal rulings are 'qualified' then lets try UNQUALIFIED candidates. They will probably do a better job. Having an ORIGINALIST interpretation of the constition should TRUMP everything else. I would rather have a truck driver with an originalist judicial philosophy than a qualified ACLU lawyer (I use to be a big ACLU supporter before they became a bunch of crazies [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]). At least with an originalist 'truck driver' jurist they could learn how to write judicial opinions OJT (on-the-job training). A judicial activist can not unlearn their unethical beliefs.

The judicial activists have played 'god' for the last 75 years in the USA by voiding legal laws and enacting laws from the bench even though they do not have the authority. It is time to end their tyranny. This new judge will PROBABLY be an improvement over O'Conner. O'Conner was Reagan's worst mistake. Stephens and Ginsberg have had health problems. If we can replace these fools with originalists, the supreme court may actually begin to make lawful decisons again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop posting.

Just stop posting.

[ACPlayer]

Are you offering odds?

I would be very, very surprised if Bush picks a moderate for any replacement.

Like I said in an earlier thread where people were talking about moderate choices -- Bush will do what Dobson wants. So far he has talked about bipartisanship but has not offered a single proposal that could be considered bipartisan.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be very, very surprised if Bush picks a moderate for any replacement.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why would he? We get a balance on the court by sometimes electing Democratic Presidents and sometimes electing Republican Presidents, not by making those presidents appoint judges they don't agree with on their legal philosophy.

[mmbt0ne]

JoshuaMayes, I don't think I've ever seen you around these parts before, but I want to say that, just based on these 3 posts, you're one of the best posters in Politics. Thanks for a lack of rhetoric and name calling.

[ACPlayer]

I didnt say whether he should or not.

I said he will not.

[ QUOTE ]
And why would he? We get a balance on the court by sometimes electing Democratic Presidents and sometimes electing Republican Presidents, not by making those presidents appoint judges they don't agree with on their personal philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[MtSmalls]

I don't think Roberts' confirmation two or three years ago is going to make any difference this time around. Its one thing to put a career DOJ employee on the appellate bench, its another to put a man with less than three years on the Federal Bench on the US Supreme Court.

Roberts has good legal credentials, but very limited experience. There are few if any of his cases from the bench that shed any light on his experience.

What little is available on him currently, I'm sure more will be available over the next few weeks, is that he is a partisan hack, career DOJ stooge, and a purely political appointment. Not to mention an immediate distraction from the Rove scandal.

I'm also sure that the 55 Republicans in the Senate will be behind him. The question remains if they can persuade the another 5 to cross the aisle, IF they can get him out of committee.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
55 Republicans in the Senate will be behind him

[/ QUOTE ]

55 Republicans would be behind dodo the clown if Bush said that he was a "good man".

[JoshuaMayes]

Thanks mmbtOne. I lurk here often, but I rarely post. I, too, dislike the partisan cheerleading and name-calling that comprises many of the threads.

[phlup]

[ QUOTE ]
I predict Roberts will sail through -- no filibuster, no nuclear option. He has friends on both sides of the aisle, he is personally charming, and he has an impeccable C.V. Gang of Fourteen member Joe Lieberman described Roberts as "inside the ballpark," yesterday, which does not bode well for the Dems hoping to muster support for a filibuster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure about this. I'm stealing this quote from another forum where someone stole it from another site. So God only knows who said it.

[ QUOTE ]
Roberts has quite a significant history in trying to undermine abortion rights, including, under the first Bush administration, co-authoring a Supreme Court brief as Deputy Solicitor General for Rust v. Sullivan which argued for the governments ability to prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients.

Among Roberts other writings can be found articles in support of a more expansive reading of the Contracts and Taking clauses of the Constitution, holding positions that would restrict Congress means for environmental protection.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this from dKosopedia:

[ QUOTE ]
As noted on Law.com Many who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm no pollster or anything but I think Roe v. Wade is actually supported by a good majority of the American people. While the die hard supporters of Bush come from the religious right, you'd be surprised that they don't make up that large a percentage of the American people. This is an issue that won't go unnoticed and will cause some backlash.

I also don't think his stance on endangered species is one that is widely shared. Again, another sticking point.

Many people are looking at this guy as a bit farther right than they really would have expected. And I agree. This isn't Bush's real nomination. This is his decoy.

Roberts will get beaten alive in the senate for his far right views, especially on abortion. Bush knows this and is planning on it. Once Roberts fails in the senate, Bush will come out with his real nomination. Someone a touch more moderate (but still very republican).

Then if the Dems get up to fight again, the GOP machine will jump into overdrive to point out to the public that the whinny liberal are just trying to block Bush's nominees cus they don't like Bush.

Roberts is a political pawn. I'm going with him failing.

Phil

/Oh, and for those of you wearing a tin foil hat like me, Roberts could also be controversial enough to take some of the heat off of Rove for a while. Just a thought.

In fairness to Judge Roberts, I heard something on the radio this morning (the liberal media, go figure), to the effect that he called Roe v. Wade the "settled law of the land" or something like that, when asked about it at his circuit court confirmation. Does that mean that he wouldn't vote to overturn it under any circumstance? Of course not. But it seems to indicate that he respects the principle of stare decisis (as he should), and that there would have to be something very new come down the pike, which has never been considered, for him to consider revisiting the ruling.