John G Roberts SCOTUS

I understood exactly what you said. You refuse to allow that there are legitimate differences of understanding of the case and its constitutionality. You seem to be completely ignorant of the conservative legal understanding of it.

see, this is the sort of spin i was talking about in the other thread. "legitimate differences of understandings?"he's wrong. plain and simple. roe v. wade DOES allow for legitimate state interest, and is not based on rights to abortions, but rights to privacy -- ANY first year law student knows this.it's the conservatives that seem to be completely ignorant of the legal understanding of it.

---

אָרַח

I was just agreeing with you.

oic.

Faith, you are incapable of posting without nonsensical raving and personal insult. Whatever personal problems you're are attempting to work out, why not take it elsewhere?I am not going to engage you on this issue, for the simple fact that you aren't worth my time. You are incapable of discussion and do not understand any subject that I have seen you try to discuss (except for when you are engaging in preaching your radical, fundamentalist religious views) including this one.Have I gone too far? If any admin thinks I need a suspension, I will accept it with dignity. However, it would seem to me to be appropriate to give Faith yet another right along with me for her ridiculous and unfounded claims of "utter blindness to your silly prejudices."This message has been edited by mikehager, 07-20-2005 12:41 PM

I don't think that's who this guy is. He's way more moderate than that, from what we can tell from his record, which is not long.

apparently, he was the legal counsel for jeb bush, during the 2000 florida recounts.this doesn't look good.

---

אָרַח

...ah. I was wondering what he was being paid back for. That really clears it up, doesn't it?

quite.

CNN has agreed to run a controversial ad produced by pro-abortion group NARAL that falsely accuses John Roberts of supporting a convicted clinic bomberBut according to FactCheck : The truth is that Roberts has publicly condemned clinic bombers saying they should be fully prosecuted. Roberts' point is that it shouldn't be a federal issue; it belongs in State courts which already has laws on the books to prosecute these criminals.It is especially ironic that the Birmingham clinic bombers were caught and prosecuted in State court which is exactly what Roberts' brief said should be done.NARAL isn't interested in facts only slime.This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 09-14-2005 05:04 PM

I agree that the ad is misleading, inaccurate and should be pulled.I also believe that unless the Bush administration releases the withheld information on Roberts his nomination should be voted down.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I will third the condemnation of his condemnation. There is a difference between not wanting something addressed, and having a particular issue on where it should be addressed. Of course this stand appears to conflict with his support of Bush during the 2000 issue (but maybe I am not totally informed on his specific position on that).Is he for state over federal power, or not?In any case, my only issue with Roberts at this time (beyond some ideological issues which are not pertinent to his appointment) is that he has had a business relationship with the Bushes. I do not believe appointments by the president, specifically lifelong ones to other branches of gov't should have any personal or business involvement with the president.Creating the possibility (or question) that he should recuse himself in a future case relating to the president, or that it might add another level of "shielding" information regarding the president, is something that should be avoided. And I couldn't care less who the president is.I am starting to get sick of crony and incestuous gov't. We are allowing a feudal semi-monarchical system to grow within what is supposed to be an open system by the PEOPLE.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm glad they pulled the ad. There's never a justification for lies.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Schummer wasnt so upset with him as one would have thought.I was listening closely towards the end last night. In TV video's that I made on Creation and Evolution in the late 90s I set up the "Lemon Test" as the fall guy/color of law. Robert's called this LAW a "survivor". Very Interesting!! He also said that the only apparent reason is that no justice has come up with anything better. He said it was good because it was sensitive to issues of fact and that it was bad becaue of the same. Very interesing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I have decided on my own that this test is NO GOOD. I did not have this in mind in the late 90s I have never tried to write a substitute however. It is clear that as long as there are LIMITS on the national power (which was "kinda" admitted, I guess that is an interpretation) then the bind beyond this bound NEED NOT BE STATES' rights, but who is going to show that this is in the power of the people. Roberts' analysis was too sparce to find the target needed in socially resolving e/c.

I was bored to tears after 3 minutes of wathing the hearings. I think the dems are just blustering for their base. His confirmation is pretty locked down.

---

"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist