John Roberts JR to supreme court

The president has announced his choice. Now the Senate has to rise to the challenge and do its work.
To fulfill our constitutional duties, we need to consider this nomination as thoroughly and carefully as the American people deserve.

The filibuster is unconstitutional? When was that decreed? I thought filibusters have taken place for decades upon decades, mounted by members of both parties when they felt the need. When did it become illegal?

I don't think he's the worst choice for the job by any means, but his positions on the seperation of church and state are, shall we say, troubling.

Cycloptichorn

Roberts seems like a good choice to me. Not too conservative and mercifully not an over the edge of the cliff liberal either.

He has quite a bit of experience and familiarity already with The Supreme Court having worked briefly for Rehnquist and also having argued (pled) cases before the 9 justices. Except for the Insanity Fringe Liberals and the War Is Peace Conservatives most folks from both sides of the aisle seem to think he will be a good choice. Of course once those confirmation hearings get started, who knows what goodies will be exhumed from his past.

I have heard that his personal opinions re: separation of church and state are different than those he has defended as a lawyer.
The biggest concern I have (especially after hearing Bush speak this morning about how the US gives primacy to women's rights over the "other guys") is whether or not Roe vs. Wade will be upheld.
The contention is that as a lawyer, one must uphold the current laws, but as a Supreme, he has the ability to interpret the constitution and....possibly overturn R v. Wade.

Maybe standards are not the same in the UK, and what we consider "over the edge of the cliff liberals" would be your equivalent of Communists, which of course, were purged from the country in the McCarthy era.

Quote:

He has quite a bit of experience and familiarity already with The Supreme Court having worked briefly for Rehnquist and also having argued (pled) cases before the 9 justices. Except for the Insanity Fringe Liberals and the War Is Peace Conservatives most folks from both sides of the aisle seem to think he will be a good choice. Of course once those confirmation hearings get started, who knows what goodies will be exhumed from his past.

What? So you're classing all the Democrat Party as "Insanity Fringe Liberals"? Because what I've heard, the Democrat Party in general doesn't like the idea, of course, that could be just down to Party affiliation, rather than whether they're liberal or not.

Still, of the 9 Judges, how many liberals are there really?

And shouldn't one of them be truly non-partisan to make things evenly balanced?

Realjohnboy admits to being a "dyed in the wool liberal." An "insanity fringe liberal?" That's a bit of a stretch, even if I knew what that phrase meant.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Maybe standards are not the same in the UK, and what we consider "over the edge of the cliff liberals" would be your equivalent of Communists, which of course, were purged from the country in the McCarthy era.

Quote:

He has quite a bit of experience and familiarity already with The Supreme Court having worked briefly for Rehnquist and also having argued (pled) cases before the 9 justices. Except for the Insanity Fringe Liberals and the War Is Peace Conservatives most folks from both sides of the aisle seem to think he will be a good choice. Of course once those confirmation hearings get started, who knows what goodies will be exhumed from his past.

What? So you're classing all the Democrat Party as "Insanity Fringe Liberals"? Because what I've heard, the Democrat Party in general doesn't like the idea, of course, that could be just down to Party affiliation, rather than whether they're liberal or not.

Still, of the 9 Judges, how many liberals are there really?

And shouldn't one of them be truly non-partisan to make things evenly balanced?

Where to start...I know! Let me start by stating that I live in The U.S. not in The U.K. I was born and raised here. I live in Rutland Vermont. It's a pleasant little burg, friendly, quiet, full if charm.

Most interesting how you pounced upon the Insanity Fringe Liberals; but, completely bypassed the comment I had about War Is Peace Conservatives. My point was quite simply that both sides have people who will reject just about anyone who isn't a carbon copy of their own beliefs. Mr. Bush has submitted the name of a man who truly is a follower of the law as it is written. John Roberts is not a political pawn or puppet, he has nothing in his (at least surface) background to indicate that he has done anything based on political views so Roberts would indeed be the nonpartisan judge you are asking for.

From the Progressive Action Network For American Progress
For Immediate Release

The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus-building sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme fringe legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.

Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration's public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's seemingly "moderate" appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported 'Creationist' religious indoctrination laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP's secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies programmed to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.

We should also point out that our opposition to ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has nothing to do with the nominee's race and/or gender. We at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress have long been on record of standing up for the civil rights of ___WHITE MEN___ , rights from which ___JOHN ROBERTS___ ironically, has benefitted. Sadly, rather than create programs and begin to work on the real problems that concern ___WHITE MEN___ , the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the plight of the ___WHITE MAN___ community.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

In response to this shocking nomination, we here at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress are joining forces with other mainstream grassroots progressive activist organizations -- organizations like Peace Power Community Now Network, Grant Proposers for Justice, NairBusters, Out of Our Wombs!, UpChuck.org, ToothACHE, and Sitcom Producers for the American Way. Over the next few weeks we will be encouraging the Senate Judiciary Committee to take a close look at ___JOHN ROBERTS___ and ___HIS___ extremist views on the critical legal issues that face all of us. While we will be working hard to get out the word in Washington, ordinary progressive citizens like you can do your part as well. First, write your newspaper and/or Senator and let them know that you will not stand by idly while Bush and Company install a pseudo-" ___WHITE MAN___" like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the nation's highest court. Here's a letter to get you started!

The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today's news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus-building sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme fringe legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.

Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration's public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___ 's seemingly "moderate" appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported 'Creationist' religious indoctrination laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP's secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies programmed to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.

We should also point out that our opposition to ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has nothing to do with the nominee's race and/or gender. We at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress have long been on record of standing up for the civil rights of ___WHITE MEN___ , rights from which ___JOHN ROBERTS___ ironically, has benefitted. Sadly, rather than create programs and begin to work on the real problems that concern ___WHITE MEN___ , the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the plight of the ___WHITE MAN___ community.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

In response to this shocking nomination, we here at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress are joining forces with other mainstream grassroots progressive activist organizations -- organizations like Peace Power Community Now Network, Grant Proposers for Justice, NairBusters, Out of Our Wombs!, UpChuck.org, ToothACHE, and Sitcom Producers for the American Way. Over the next few weeks we will be encouraging the Senate Judiciary Committee to take a close look at ___JOHN ROBERTS___ and ___HIS___ extremist views on the critical legal issues that face all of us. While we will be working hard to get out the word in Washington, ordinary progressive citizens like you can do your part as well. First, write your newspaper and/or Senator and let them know that you will not stand by idly while Bush and Company install a pseudo-" ___WHITE MAN___" like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the nation's highest court. Here's a letter to get you started!

Mr. Bush has submitted the name of a man who truly is a follower of the law as it is written. John Roberts is not a political pawn or puppet, he has nothing in his (at least surface) background to indicate that he has done anything based on political views so Roberts would indeed be the nonpartisan judge you are asking for.

Quote:

Mr. Bush has submitted the name of a man who truly is a follower of the law as it is written. John Roberts is not a political pawn or puppet, he has nothing in his (at least surface) background to indicate that he has done anything based on political views so Roberts would indeed be the nonpartisan judge you are asking for.

Interesting understanding of 'partisan' and 'political views' here. Nothing partisan or political about the Federalist Society, they are just guys who meet for poker on tuesdays. Heck, I'll bet half of them - maybe more - are Democrats!

"Follower of the law as it is written"...ya gotta like this wording. As if literalism is mandated within the constitution itself as the proper, or only, lens through which it ought to be understood.