Defeat John Roberts : Media is creating B.S.
 

In MSN today: "WASHINGTON - Although defeating Judge John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, is an uphill climb for Senate Democrats and the liberal groups allied with them, the outlines have emerged of a strategy to challenge, if not defeat Roberts."

Is the media just making this crap up or what. Unless we find out that he molested children or smokes crack, he's going to be confirmed. The democrats aren't planning on defeating Roberts. Roberts has an impeccable record. Impeccable schooling. Impeccable work ethic.

Maybe I'm wrong but I have more faith in our Senate to play politics on an issue that doesn't exist. Yes, they need to do diligence to ensure that he is competent to perform the job. Anytime you give someone a lifetime appointment, you need to perform the necessary checks. I would be extremely disappointed with the Senate if the confirmation vote is split on party lines.

But come on, the media is making up a firestorm that isn't there. And, I don't think this has anything to do with the media being accused of liberalism. I think they are just trying to sell papers.

Maybe you and I are to blame. If we didn't buy into the crap the media drums up, maybe they wouldn't drum it up and actually investigated the truth and reported on that without falling back on sensationalism.

Rant Over.

Michael

Who wrote that stuff? I don't see any problem for Roberts yet.

So where is the conspiracy? What part of "we don't want the court packed with right-wing wackos" didn't you get?

Have not seen him as a right wing wacko. Links?

Sorry, should have included the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8655699/

He was our milkman years ago before he got his start in law.

Nice guy!

Anyone who writes "Roe v. Wade should be overturned" and is as simplistic an 'originalist' as this guy should not be on the Supreme Court.

Bill Frist has endorsed him, so that's a second strike.

And finally, the guy has all of 26 months as a judge? And he's the 'top candidate?' This feels like every other one of Bush's appointees (besides Colin Powell) -- just an underachiever like the boss.

Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that neither followed precedent nor the constitution. Regardless of what you think of the rights the decision afforded, the SCOTUS should not be making decisions based on personal preference.

That is a poor argument, at best. If Bill Frist made the statement "I like the fact that techweenie is alive", would you kill yourself?

IIRC, Rehnquist had 0 months as a judge prior to his appointment.

Plenty of reason to NOT appoint him here... http://www.moveon.org/

When asked a question about decisions on a faith-based issue (abortion, death penalty, etc.), he said he would recuse himself since he is a devout Catholic. Is that a course of action a supreme court jurist is suppose to do?

Sherwood

Honestly, is moveon.org going to have anything nice to say about anyone the president nominates? He could nominate Hillary Clinton, and they'd still find fault with him.

Good point. But then again, we're talking about Bush here. I don't think he's capable of nominating a qualified candidate...even if one came up and bit him on the ass.



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1122490243.jpg

The list is here (and long):

http://political.moveon.org/roberts/info.html

I'm with Sherwood, I think. I don't want someone to recuse himself. I want them to make decisions based upon law and our constitution, and sometimes that changes with history, but I want everyone on that court thinking, discussing, arguing and contributing.

Bush had more time to think about potential candidates since O'Conner said she'd serve until a new jurist was selected, but the sudden announcement shoved the Rove articles over to page 10 where they wanted it.

Sherwood

So you thing the 'right to privacy' is not supported by the spirit of the constitution?

The Frist comment was a joke, based upon his opinion of Terry Schiavo's rehabilitation potential from remote diagnosis. His opinions are somewhat less impressive after that one.

I am well aware that SC candidates are not required to be jurists, but Bush touted Roberts using those terms, so he can be criticized in the same context.

Our state and federal government run all over any suposed "right to privacy". If we really had one, the DMV and IRS, to name a few, would surely be in violation of that "right".

Overall, Frist has done a great job. He let his personal beliefs get in the way of medical fact in one case.

Frist, a medical doctor, also thinks you can catch aid throught tears.

the man should have been stripped of his medical license after that, and of this senate position for being such a suck-up to the special interest Christian Right.

he has no credibility whatsoever.

if you look carefully, you can see the string and pull in his back under his jacket.

Oh my friend, he did more than that. He abused his power based on personal beliefs trying to get a Federal law passed that was specific to one person in the country, trampling on state's rights along the way, in a tawdry bid to win over the Christian Right in his future run for the presidency.

the man should be dismissed from the Senate.

Driving off a bridge while drunk and letting your passenger drown isn't enough to get you kicked out of the senate, why should this?

Stop living in the past, what is that 40+ years ago. Your argument has no validation, no logic.

if OJ got away iwth killing his wife, can I not use that as a defense?

hey, OJ got away with it, so can I.

:rolleyes:

I'm seeing a trend here.

The left wants the SCOTUS to uphold their badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases. (Like Roe v. Wade.)

The right wants the SCOTUS to uphold their badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases. (Like the Terry Schiavo law.)

No one seems to want a SCOTUS that will throw out badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases. I think Roberts would have been likely to throw out both of the above examples.

Therefore, because he will not uphold the left's badly-thought-out and emotionally-charged cases, the left opposes Roberts.

So you prefer a murderer to someone who passed a law that had no chance of being upheld in court?

My impression of Roberts is:
- Generally conservative, leans toward originalist view
- No real indication of being an "extreme" conservative
- Excellent, thoughtful, effective lawyer who respects the law
- Well-respected by colleagues and opposing counsel

I think that is as good a nominee as we're likely to get from the Bush Administration. Personally I'd prefer a less conservative nominee, but the court should reflect a diversity of views with high-quality justices. Given that we have a Republican President and Congress, you can't really expect a liberal nominee. And Roberts appears to be a high-quality nominee. So I'm not opposed to Roberts.

I had dinner last night with a lawyer friend who is very liberal, very well-informed, and follows Supreme Court issues quite closely. He was a law clerk for one of the Justices, I forget which one. He was fairly pleased with the Roberts nomination.

He had two other comments, that I found interesting.

First, he thinks for Bush to nominate Roberts instead of an overt and extreme conservative is a sign of Bush's increasing lame-duck status. The President's legislative agenda is stalling out, his approval ratings are low, the Plame investigation is a threat, he doesn't have enough political capital to push through a super-ideologue like a Janice Rogers Brown.

Second, he thinks Roberts could be another Souter. Remember that Bush Sr nominated Souter as a solid conservative to replace liberal standard-bearer Brennan. But Souter didn't have a clear record (he was dubbed the "stealth justice" during the confirmation hearings) and Bush Sr. didn't get what he wanted. Souter proceeded to disappoint the conservative Republicans by being more of a centrist.

What do you think?

Another thought, this time one of mine - if you think that a lawyer must be personally committed to a view simply because he's argued that view as an advocate, you're taking a big risk.

I agree John, I think Roberts will be fine.

And yes, Bush clearly has spent all of his political capital, on what I still don't know, but he's as impotent as a Bumble with a root canal. Roberts is a no-brainer, and you can see that in Chuck Schumer's management of the Democratic message.

This seems like complete cack!

Look...it is a lawyer's job to "Argue" and to "Threaten"...

...to argue that OJ is innocent, to argue that Martha is guilty, to argue FOR Roe V Wade or AGAINST Roe vs. Wade, to argue WHATEVER based upon the case. That is what they get paid for and it usually has no bearing on what they personally believe.

If they don't "Argue" and "Threaten", they aren't doing their job.

Garrison has a few good words for the man:

http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/07/27/roberts/index.html

If he's cool with Garrison, he's cool with me.

Yes, but what does Mr Hat have to say about the whole thing?