Once again Pres Bush shows us the great man he is (John Roberts nominated for SCOTUS)

He may be from Indiana (Long Beach) but he's been amongst the Eloi for a long time. He's a bit of a social butterfly. I fear he may have picked up the East Coast Eloi culture and want to please the Washington Post rather than follow the Constitution. :eek:

I hope for a Thomas, but fear another Souter or Kennedy.
 
Watching one of the news shows talkin bout him it seems that he is one that interprets the constitution conservatively. Being, he thinks what it says it what should be followed. They specifically mentioned the 2nd amendment in the news show on CNN. That he sopported the right of the people to k.b.a. Someone on the show didn't like that too much.
 
I haven't found much on the web about him and KBA - but if Woman Killer Kennedy voted against him once already then he has gotta be good! :)
 
Z_Infidel, Scalia also is a member of the Federalist Society. A lot of help that's been.

I don't think it's wise to read Roberts's briefs as statements of his personal philosophy, but some people seem to be doing just that. Sometimes lawyers in private practice end up arguing against their beliefs on behalf of clients.
 
tyme wrote:
I don't think it's wise to read Roberts's briefs as statements of his personal philosophy, but some people seem to be doing just that. Sometimes lawyers in private practice end up arguing against their beliefs on behalf of clients.
Click to expand...
There is something to be said about the briefs he has written when he was before the Supreme Court. It gives you a feel how he would interpret certain portions of the constitution. Now this may or may not be against his private beliefs, but it shows how his mind works.
 
I haven't found much on the web about him and KBA - but if... ...Kennedy voted against him once already then he has gotta be good!
Click to expand...
I think that anyone nominated by GWB will have that effect on certain NE & CA Democrats.
Roberts has a good grasp of what's required of a SC Justice, but who really knows his views on 2A and if he will have enough legal ability/skill to sway 1 or 3 other votes to join Thomas/Scalia. And even he his views agreed with mine, would it be wise of him to lay those cards down in front of certain Congressional leaders?
I'm sure he'll be raked (or Borked) over hot coals on his Roe v. Wade...
Similarly, he testified, he was simply representing his client, the administration of the first President George Bush, when he urged the Supreme Court in 1990 to overturn the Roe vs. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. That ruling remains "the settled law of the land,'' and nothing in his personal views would prevent him from applying it as a judge, Roberts said. It is an assertion that Senate Democrats are certain to revisit in the upcoming hearings.
Click to expand...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/21/MNGSJDR79J1.DTL
We do know he takes the hard line at illegal French fry eating in places you ain't supposed to...
French fries: Writing a ruling upholding the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry at a D.C. rail station.
Click to expand...
At least he didn't hang her... :p
 
No way to second guess him with the info filters working the way they are.

Roberts indicated at the hearing discomfort with Scalia's view that judges must rely solely on the intent of the authors of the Constitution, and the wording of laws, to determine their meaning.
Click to expand...
 
Not only would I not trust anything he's written in a brief for the government or for private clients (but Antipitas has a good point -- they may provide insight into his thought processes)...

I also would not put any stock in anything he says during confirmation hearings. Aside from obvious lies and contradictions, nominees say anything to get confirmed.
 
Roberts has a good grasp of what's required of a SC Justice
Click to expand...

He does? He's only been a judge at all for what? Less than 2 years, if my memory of press reports is correct?

I'm worried about his experience. Just because he has argued - as a lawyer - before the SC doesn't necessarily mean that he would (or wouldn't, for argument's sake) make a good SC justice.
 
Roberts is not a Federalist Society member and never has been. He may have addressed Society members at a meeting or dinner speech, but he never joined the group.

One interesting thing about the great French fry caper: in his decision he basically said, this law sucks but I am constrained by the statute as written.

In other words, he deliberately and consciously rejected any temptation to legislate from the bench.
 
"In other words, he deliberately and consciously rejected any temptation to legislate from the bench."

Ding Ding Ding!

And Mr. James get the prize for UNDERSTANDING what almost everyone who references this case doesn't.
 
Well, I believe Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society -- which bodes well.
Click to expand...

How is a society membership, one mostly comprising of lawyers who join when they are young, a positive or negative? If he is, big whoop. If he isn't big whoop.

Most of the media prostitutes, Coulter included, dislike him. That's a good thing.
 
Well, I believe Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society -- which bodes well.
Click to expand...

How is a society membership, one mostly comprising of lawyers who join when they are young, a positive or negative? If he is, big whoop. If he isn't big whoop.

Most of the media prostitutes, Coulter included, dislike him. That's a good thing.
 
Bush is the dumbest president we've ever had, and I'm a card carrying republican. There are more issues than gun control for us to worry about. And if you've been paying attention to our country for the last 4 years you'll see that we are headed in a bad direction in regards to economics and foreign policy. Both sides want control of you, things like Gun Control and Abortion are just buzz terms they throw out to make American's think they are hard at work for our interests. I don't see how anyone with an IQ over 100 could respect a guy like Bush, he's full of **** and probably one of the dumbest presidents we've ever had. Ever listen to one of his speeches?
 
I would like to touch on the post above... The only people who are lacking of intelligence in the problem of Bush being stupid are the people who think he is dumb. He isn’t. He is what we call foolish. The man flew F-102s for a living. He is not dumb. However he squanders money by wasting it in Africa, he refuses to secure the United States by SEALING the borders, etc, etc... I could go on and on. As for speeches… I have heard him speak on the radio numerous times while he was still governor of Texas and he was quite articulate. Impressively so, actually.

Obviously I dislike President Bush immensely. I feel as though he has betrayed me. That being said, I voted for him because we all knew that he would get at least one pick. Hopefully two.

We have yet to see what type of man Roberts truly is. It sounds as though Bush picked a judge who is slightly conservative. Conservative and Constitutionalist do not necessarily go together. Time will tell whether or not he is a Souter.

To be honest, because the Democrats are not in a jihad over this tells me that Roberts is only mildly offensive. Which means Bush caved. We shall see.

I truly hope that Roberts is the type of man who will overturn unconstitutional rulings. Judging from the sounds I hear, he may be. It is still too early to tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top