Bush Has Made His Supreme Court Pick

I am anti Federal involvement in Abortions. That means no Tax money for it and no restrictions against it. Both sides hate me.

Already did Especially Schumer.

Since the 2004 elections, this has become the war-cry of the Right. What on earth happened to "of, by, for"?

In my world, prepositions mean a great deal.

You think that's bad, Lupo...try being a Moderate.

And what would a Moderates position on abortion be that would make them hated?

Well, kinda like yours. I'm against abortions, angering the far left, but I think it's a personal moral decision women should bee allowed to make, angering the far right. Roe vs. Wade strikes the right balance legally for me, however. I think that Roberts is disinclined to be a conservative judicial activist.


Just a stream of conscious thought here...but the idea bigger and bigger profits being the *only* way of succeeding in America is really getting scary in how it pervades our culture. Think about it. The corporations that own newspapers cannot be satisfied with steady profits...their stockholders must show ever increasing gains or the company's failing. So, they must gain more and more readers/viewers to make more and more profits. The way to do so? Appeal more and more to the things that make people read: Controversy, Scandal, Fear, Extremism.


George Bush could have nominated Fred Rogers (were he alive) to Surpreme Court Justice, and you would hear a nasty fight over his character. You can't make money off of moderation. That's why we moderates are so reviled in this country; we're against most people's religion.

Yeah he'll get confirmed, especially since Sandra Day O'Connor approves of him. She says he is "First rate".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor_4;_ylt=AtSNNa619OxxEUFI03EbSyJuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

How does that differ from the "far left". Do you think we go around kidnapping pregnant women and force them to have abortions? Nobody is "for" abortions. People are either pro-choice or anti-choice. Clearly you are pro-choice.

The thing that gets me, is the very thing that could keep a lot of unplanned pregnancies and abortions from happening is EDUCATION! Do not just teach abstinence as Bush has insisted upon. You must teach protection as well. All the moral/religious issues should be discussed at home with parents/guardians/mentors. Just because we are pro-choice doesn't mean we go around WANTING abortions to be performed. We pro-choicers are protecting a woman's rights to her own body and well being. I think we can all agree it would be awesome if there didn't ever have to be another abortion, but in reality we know that's not going to happen.


And I do believe that Ms. O'Conner said he was "confirmable" or at least that is what I heard. But you know, I could be wrong! LOL!

What the heck? Are people reading leftist propaganda and posting it here or something? Or is it the "vast right wing conspiracy" causing inconsistencies everywhere?

Yesterday I read something to the effect of "Democrats said Bush's choice had very good credentials for the job" (I can't remember the exact words), but the key part there is that DEMOCRATS didn't start freaking out and flinging monkey shit. (Essence of what I read was that the Democrats said Bush's nomination had what it takes to do the job.) Of course, since every liberal special interest group out there has been preparing to fight this nomination for years now, why am I surprised?

I am a little disappointed that more of a moderate wasn't chosen... supposedly Bush had a record of choosing moderates when he was in Texas. I'm a little afraid of the Roe vs. Wade aspect of the choice (I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice out of necessity due to what would happen if the laws changed)...

But then again I'm not scanning for flaws trying to discredit the guy at all costs because he doesn't agree with all of my own personal agendas and because he's Bush's choice, so maybe that's why I'm only "a little" disappointed.

White bread, Bush crony, owed a favor because of his work for W in the 2000 Florida election scandal. W's idea of necessary diversity: back to tokenism, one apiece. This decision cannot be defended as "finding the best, um, person." It can be defended as "the crony with the greatest stealth factor."

Or....

It's all part of a conspiracy theory I heard about the other day. O'Conner resigns. W appoints conservative crony right wing base appeaser. Nomination goes through the Senate, expedited. Rehnquist resigns. W appoints O'Conner as Chief Justice. Dem leaders know this already, and will make disapproving noises about Rogers, but nothing serious, because they want O'Conner. Proof: why did Specter and the Dems shut up so fast about the idea of O'Conner as Chief Justice a few weeks ago - after talking with White House people?

I love conspiracy theories. So entertaining, and every thousand or so times, one comes true.

I have a hard time having strong feelings either way when it comes to this guy. I would liked to have seen someone with a little more bench time, but I think the lack of experience is part of the plan. I wouldn't count on his confirmation so quickly. Strange things can happen.

As for the far left and their talking points against the President's nominee, I give you Ann Coulter. I do kind of agree with her last three sentences. hehe

============================

"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Were do I fall? I want no federal Law for or against Abortions. I want no federal money going for or against it.

Oh and I am for Abortions. I think many people should have them. Many people should A) not have children (Adopted or there own) B) keep there DNA going.

Somebody has to be for abortions, Kendra. If everyone agreed that abortions were wrong, there wouldn't be this debate. I differ from the 'far left' in that my personal views on when I'd have an abortion are *extremely* narrow, if I'd have one at all. Most people on the pro-choice side of the equation would advise abortions in a lot more situations than I would.

And just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you force it on someone. That's why I'm pro-choice. I don't think the practice of abortions is that necessary. But even if you disagree with my position, I will defend your right to do what you wish with your body...I *don't* think it's any of the government's business.

What's your personal view on when *I* can have an abortion?

*shrug* Not my body, not my life, dear. Yes, I am pro-choice. I'm a lot more conservative in my abortion view than most pro-choice people, I'll bet.
But then, I don't think many people *think* about hot-button issues. You're either for or against, Left or Right, Coke or Pepsi.

Which brings me back to my opinion on how people are reacting to the Roberts nomination. The guy clearly isn't a radical or an extremist. Yet people all over the Net and the media are clamoring to label him as for abortion, or anti-environment, or whatever.

I personally don't see what the hub-bub is all about. Renquist and O'Conner are conservatives. Filling their positions with conservatives hardly seems to be tipping the ideological balance of the Court. The only worry I have is putting in someone who's blatantly activist. If RoevWade is struck down, it will be by a use of judicial activism, IMHO. We need moderates with sharp intellects on the bench. Not liberal revisionists or conservative revisionists.

O'Connor (and Rehnquist, to a degree) are conservative pragmatists. O'Conner comes from the Western rural flavor of conservatism that has a deep respect for working class families and a strong aversion to hipocracy. That's one reason she's been a swing vote in many cases, a moderate voice on a sharply-divided court.

Roberts is a rich kid from the Beltway who's been silver-spooned up the ladder all his life. Most of his lawyering career has been spent defending rich companies against the working class. He doesn't have O'Connor's pragmatic sense of what works for average people in the real world, because his exposure to the real world has been carefully limited.

If Roberts has a saving grace, it's that he's by all accounts extremely intellegent. Put a smart person in a lifetime appointment making very important decisions, and sometimes they grow a conscience. It happened with Souter; it could happen again.

But I wouldn't bet my rights on it.

*laugh* Okay, lets kill off all the trial lawyers, and see how many judges we have left. Even Sandra O'Connor had a private practice...and while I don't have a history of her law firm's cases, I highly doubt she never represented a commerical client.

I've never bought the "rich kids don't understand how the world works because they're isolated from it" arguement. We are *all* isolated from the world in one degree or another. As to Robert's sin of defending the evil corporate monsters against the rights of the downtrodden working class, can we see a few examples?

From the Wikipedia article:



And he upheld the arrest of a 12-year-old for the "crime" of eating a single french fry in a Metro station, meeting the letter of the law but utterly failing the spirit.

He may mature on the bench, but his record does not reassure me.

Yeah, I gotta admit, I found that one odd. One might almost take that he blindly follows the letter of the law.... I think there is a place for examining the facts of a case, rather than rubber-stamping "It's The Law" on every brief that goes by. *shrug* Well, he's not perfect....and will hardly satisfy everyone completely. But then, name me a nominee who would.

He must be the perfect person for the job. If the extreme conservatives and extreme liberals hate him, it has to be right.

You guys don't like him either? Damn. Here I was describing him as the posterboy of the Fascist Republican Judiciary, and it turns out ya'll don't want him either. So... did Jebus give Bush some divine insight to which we aren't privy, or did he put on a blindfold and choose Judge Roberts from the "Shitty Jurists" pool?

Who's "you guys"? I was just observing the Ann Coulter quote above somewhere, being critical of him.

I don't really have a problem with him...but that's mostly because I've only heard the random soundbites so far I guess. If he's in fact more moderate than some say he is, good.

Like I said before, I read that Bush supposedly had a habit of picking moderates when he was in Texas. ...Maybe that's what he aimed for again..I dunno.