John Roberts chosen for Supreme Court

[RakuraiTenjin]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20050720/ts_nm/bush_court_dc

:O

edit: I thought I was in politics, please move this there.

 

[gh0st]

Good choice... not very surprising though.

 

[CyberPitz]

I have no idea about any of this I havn't payed any attention to pollitics since Clinton was first elected.....that was when I was just a wee kid..8 I think?

 

[The Monkey]

So this guy is against abortion?

 

[CyberPitz]

So this guy is against abortion?

suck, im all for it

 

[bliink]

edit: I thought I was in politics, please move this there.

..Done!

 

[Absinthe]

Don't know enough about the guy to have an opinion on him. I've heard he's pretty conservative though, so chances are I'm gonna dislike his nomination.

 

[CptStern]

another pro-life conservative put into a seat of power:


from wikipedia:


"In a brief before the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled"

"In the same capacity as deputy solicitor general, Roberts also argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs"


"Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations "


"In a case before the Supreme Court Roberts argued on behalf of mining companies who wanted to use criminal contempt fines to force the end of a strike which had been ruled unlawful"

"Roberts has also argued on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of the legality of mountaintop removal,"


"Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that 'the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California,' and therefore could not affect interstate commerce."

 

[Icarusintel]

if abortion's the only sticking point then i don;t know what the problem is, it's not like he's going to get Roe v. Wade overturned all by himself and if anything else came up about abortion he'd be outnumbered
after saying that, i'm pro-choice, but i still think that if this is the only problem he should get the spot

 

[CptStern]

yes but I'm sure he'll be on the dissenting side every single time an abortion case makes it's way to the supreme court ..I truely think personal feelings should never influence a judges decision

 

[iyfyoufhl]

well, will see what the other people (proffesionals) have to say about him

 

[Icarusintel]

yes but I'm sure he'll be on the dissenting side every single time an abortion case makes it's way to the supreme court ..I truely think personal feelings should never influence a judges decision

but sadly that's not the case, is it? really every single judge in the world is influenced by their own feelings and morals in some way, some are just better about dealing with it than others, but the current Supreme Court Justices are most certainly influenced by how they feel

 

[CptStern]

no that's not even remotely true ...judges decide based on facts ..they may sentence based on personal beliefs butthey do not base their judgements on personal feelings

 

[Icarusintel]

no that's not even remotely true ...judges decide based on facts ..they may sentence based on personal beliefs butthey do not base their judgements on personal feelings

then where does judge judy fall?

 

[CptStern]

hopefully on her ass :E

 

[Icarusintel]

hopefully on her ass :E

nice one :thumbs:

 

[iyfyoufhl]

then where does judge judy fall?

i hated that bitch

 

[gh0st]

another pro-life conservative put into a seat of power:


from wikipedia:


"In a brief before the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled"

"In the same capacity as deputy solicitor general, Roberts also argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs"


"Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations "


"In a case before the Supreme Court Roberts argued on behalf of mining companies who wanted to use criminal contempt fines to force the end of a strike which had been ruled unlawful"

"Roberts has also argued on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of the legality of mountaintop removal,"


"Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that 'the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California,' and therefore could not affect interstate commerce."

Sounds like a Ted Kennedy talking point, stern. I was listening to him in awe today on The Today Show, Matt Lauer asked him (I'm paraphrasing) "during the Clinton administration, judges were nominated, and approved by senate republicans very easily. though there was a difference of opinion, republicans seemed to recognize their judicial background and natural legal skill. What will it take for senate democrats to approve judge Roberts?"

his reply? its all about the issues, of course. "is he for big corporations, or for the little guy" (this is just preposterous, he's the one supporting that bullshit eminent domain), "is he for reproductive rights or against it", and basically kept going on about these hot button social issues. of course, he would never recognize Robert's absolutely stellar resume like senate republicans did during clinton's nominations. see, the court is the pathway through which liberalism (read: ted Kennedy) gets institutionalized in America, so they bludgeon and defeat the courts purpose, and as has been the precedent in THIS court, to legislate by the bench. you all have terrifically wrong views of what the court is for. Roberts is PERFECT. he is a strict constructionist, he isn't going to manipulate or ignore all together the constitution - exactly the freshman justice we need. if you disagree with him about the things he said, that's fine, but its no reason at all not to go along with his appointment.

I dont even see whats so bad about what he said in your quote.

 

[Adidajs]

another pro-life conservative put into a seat of power:


from wikipedia:


"In a brief before the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled"

"In the same capacity as deputy solicitor general, Roberts also argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs"


"Roberts has often, both in his public and private work, taken a position against government environmental regulation. Roberts argued against the private citizen's right to sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations "


"In a case before the Supreme Court Roberts argued on behalf of mining companies who wanted to use criminal contempt fines to force the end of a strike which had been ruled unlawful"

"Roberts has also argued on behalf of the National Mining Association in support of the legality of mountaintop removal,"


"Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that 'the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California,' and therefore could not affect interstate commerce."

but in these cases he was representing a client. There is a difference, Stern, between a litigant and a jurist.

In 2003, during his confirmation hearing for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts responded to a senator's question about Roe v. Wade: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land...There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." He said that his previous statement in 1990 was his client's position, not his own.

from Wikipedia. interesting how you pick your quotes to match your views Stern.

 

[CptStern]

but in these cases he was representing a client. There is a difference, Stern, between a litigant and a jurist. from Wikipedia. interesting how you pick your quotes to match your views Stern.

"as deputy solicitor general, Roberts also argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs"

 

[Adidajs]

do you even know what a solicitor general is Stern? It's still a litigant. They just represent the government in front of the Supreme Court. I'll reiterate. There is a difference, Stern, between a litigant and a jurist.

 

[The Monkey]

You had it coming.

 

[CptStern]

do you even know what a solicitor general is Stern? It's still a litigant. They just represent the government in front of the Supreme Court. I'll reiterate. There is a difference, Stern, between a litigant and a jurist.

an animal rights lawyer wouldnt testify on behalf of the government if it was contrary to his/her beliefs


a pro-choice lawyer wouldnt argue for against abortion because it's contrary to his/her beliefs


although I do see your point ...were it only in this one case I'd agree but he has made a name for himself as a pro-life litigant (there's that word again)

 

[Raziaar]

yes but I'm sure he'll be on the dissenting side every single time an abortion case makes it's way to the supreme court ..I truely think personal feelings should never influence a judges decision

How do you know his personal feelings get in the way of his rulings? Or do you just say that because you're already vehemently against him despite anything he's done, yet?

I don't know the guy, but i'm above being vehemently against someone without knowing them too well.

Just because somebody votes for or against something and it so happens their personal opinions are either for or against, doesnt mean they just ruled from their heart rather than the law. If thats the case, why would you even support the placing of a pro-abortion advocate either, if he's just going to rule from his emotions rather than law?

 

[gh0st]

although I do see your point ...were it only in this one case I'd agree but he has made a name for himself as a pro-life litigant (there's that word again)

Its his job to interpret the constitution, personal feelings have nothing to do with it. He feels, actually knowing the constitution, that abortion is unconstitutional. You can agree or disagree, but he's the legal expert here, not you.

 

[Raziaar]

Its his job to interpret the constitution, personal feelings have nothing to do with it. He feels, actually knowing the constitution, that abortion is unconstitutional. You can agree or disagree, but he's the legal expert here, not you.

And many people, praise his "brilliant legal mind".

 

[Hapless]

an animal rights lawyer wouldnt testify on behalf of the government if it was contrary to his/her beliefs


a pro-choice lawyer wouldnt argue for against abortion because it's contrary to his/her beliefs


although I do see your point ...were it only in this one case I'd agree but he has made a name for himself as a pro-life litigant (there's that word again)

Defense attorneys often argue in favor of clients who they detest on a personal level. It's their job. If they refused to argue on behalf of a murderer because it's against their personal beliefs, they would probably be disbarred or suffer some sort of sanctions.

Animal rights attorneys obviously have strong personal beliefs regarding, well, animal rights. Would you object if an animal rights attorney was chosen as a nominee? How about a pro-choice attorney? Your problem with this nomination is not the fact that this guy has strong personal beliefs, it's that those beliefs differ from yours. Intolerant, to say the least.

 

[CptStern]

so the lot of you are saying that personal beliefs dont play into a supreme court justices decisions?



they vote dont they?

lets examine roe vs wade. in that decision it was 7-2 in favor of upholding privacy rights ...meaning that 2 supreme court justices felt/thought/believed that a woman didnt have a right to end her pregnancy. All 9 justices heard the same testimony, read the same briefs ...how can you not argue personal beliefs didnt come into play here?

 

[gh0st]

so the lot of you are saying that personal beliefs dont play into a supreme court justices decisions?



they vote dont they?

lets examine roe vs wade. in that decision it was 7-2 in favor of upholding privacy rights ...meaning that 2 supreme court justices felt/thought/believed that a woman didnt have a right to end her pregnancy. All 9 justices heard the same testimony, read the same briefs ...how can you not argue personal beliefs didnt come into play here?

thats how they interpret the constitution.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

so the lot of you are saying that personal beliefs dont play into a supreme court justices decisions?



they vote dont they?

lets examine roe vs wade. in that decision it was 7-2 in favor of upholding privacy rights ...meaning that 2 supreme court justices felt/thought/believed that a woman didnt have a right to end her pregnancy. All 9 justices heard the same testimony, read the same briefs ...how can you not argue personal beliefs didnt come into play here?

The difference is, he agrees that Roe vs Wade's outcome is the law of the land, even if he feels personally it shouldn't be. If for example, rogue police arrest a woman in Phoenix for having an abortion, he'll rule that the arrest was not legal and she must be freed.

An activist judge would rule on the basis of what they felt should be legal, not what it is. He may feel it's not, but in cases like that, he rules based on what is. Ruling on Roe Vs Wade itself is an issue of personal belief, but ruling on an issue like the example I gave is where the real problems are. Roberts will rule based on law.

 

[CptStern]

The difference is, he agrees that Roe vs Wade's outcome is the law of the land, even if he feels personally it shouldn't be.

only because it's his sworn duty to uphold the law ..a law he voted on

If for example, rogue police arrest a woman in Phoenix for having an abortion, he'll rule that the arrest was not legal and she must be freed.

again that's his sworn duty (not that it's his duty to rule wether she should be freed as it's already been passed into law by that point) ..inanyevent that doesnt negate his decision was based on personal belief

 

[Raziaar]

so the lot of you are saying that personal beliefs dont play into a supreme court justices decisions?

What we're saying is... you won't be satisfied until a liberal, pro-choice person is appointed instead... even though they'll quite likely be just as biased by their own personal feelings.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

only because it's his sworn duty to uphold the law ..a law he voted on




again that's his sworn duty (not that it's his duty to rule wether she should be freed as it's already been passed into law by that point) ..inanyevent that doesnt negate his decision was based on personal belief

Right so there's no reason to vote him down then, as he's a qualified and good judge, if not block him from getting voted on at all, which is what democrats are threatening to do. Filibuster, just read phonebooks and stay on the podium for literally days until the sessions end to block voting on him (because he'll get voted yes)

 

[Hapless]

The only way personal feelings wouldn't enter into it is if we created robot judges with no emotions or personality. Wasn't there a movie or book that had something to that effect?

 

[CptStern]

so you're flip flopping now?

 

[Adidajs]

Stern, there is a difference between interpretation of the Constitution and the "personal feelings".

Example: Lawrence vs. Texas(2003).

A neighbor files a false weapons disturbance charge to get police to enter an apartment where two men are found to be having sex. They are arrested, charged with violating the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law. This eventually reaches the Supreme Court, where it was overturned. Now i have no doubt that some of the justices may have held personal convictions against Homosexuality, but ruled on whether this Texas Law violated the fourteenth amendment, the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, and a previous Court decision (Bowers vs. Hardwick). Now the dissenters in this case didn't rule against homosexuality, just against the pandora's box that would open because of all the other lower court decisions based upon this previous ruling of Bowers vs. Hardwick.

 

[CptStern]

so in the case of roe vs wade 2 of the justice voted against the decision based on .....what? all 9 justice heard the same testimony, read the same briefs



you know sometimes I wish you people (not you adidajs, the right wingers in general) would scrutinize all the documents I present with such a fine-toothed comb as you seem to be doing on this insignificant point ..we might actually get somewhere in our debates

 

[Hapless]

Defense attorneys often argue in favor of clients who they detest on a personal level. It's their job. If they refused to argue on behalf of a murderer because it's against their personal beliefs, they would probably be disbarred or suffer some sort of sanctions.

Animal rights attorneys obviously have strong personal beliefs regarding, well, animal rights. Would you object if an animal rights attorney was chosen as a nominee? How about a pro-choice attorney? Your problem with this nomination is not the fact that this guy has strong personal beliefs, it's that those beliefs differ from yours. Intolerant, to say the least.

The only way personal feelings wouldn't enter into it is if we created robot judges with no emotions or personality. Wasn't there a movie or book that had something to that effect?

Explain, please, how I flip-flopped.

 

[gh0st]

looks like democrats arent willing to filibuster. how novel of them.

 

[CptStern]

Explain, please, how I flip-flopped.

Defense attorneys often argue in favor of clients who they detest on a personal level. It's their job. If they refused to argue on behalf of a murderer because it's against their personal beliefs, they would probably be disbarred or suffer some sort of sanctions

followed by

The only way personal feelings wouldn't enter into it is if we created robot judges with no emotions or personality. Wasn't there a movie or book that had something to that effect?

unless that is you're just playing both sides of the fence