Judge Roberts~Who is He?
Who is he? I personally am not sure. Some libs like him, others questionable, consevatives seem to like him, however taking the pulse at WND POLL this a.m. ( which IMO are mostly conserves) there isn't a big applause over him, in fact there appears to be cautious intrepediation.
One thing everyone is wondering about is his stand on Pro-life issues.
In 1991, John G. Roberts Jr told the Supreme Court that its historic decision supporting a woman's right to an abortion was "wrongly decided and should be overruled." But in 2003 he admitted that he made the administration's case against Roe v. Wade only because that was his responsibility as its lawyer.
( i.e. It was his Job).
In his confirmation hearings for a federal judgeship in April 2003, Roberts maintained that he always separates his personal beliefs from his duty to follow the law -- including Roe v. Wade , which he described as a long-settled precedent.
Can he Rule according to the Constitution?
As a lawyer "Passion" has been a word associated with his litigation practices. However as one of the SCOTUS he will not be involved personally as an attorney, he will be asked to decide independantly and according to the constitution.
In the past he has voted in favor of corporations over a toad~ A blow to the ECO-NAZIS~ But by the same token he also wrote in favor of a mining company in its efforts to bar lawsuits by local citizens against a type of mineral extraction that involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the debris in streams.
He also advised Jeb Bush on how the Florida legislature could name George W. Bush the winner at time when Republicans feared the courts might force a different choice.
According to the Washington Post, Democrats as well as Republicans -- signed a letter calling him "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and hailing his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."
The fact that DemoRats like him worries me a bit.
John C. Yoo, a conservative professor of law at University of California at Berkeley who served in the Justice Department in the current administration, emphasizes what he called Roberts's traditional approach to the law. In the 39 cases that Roberts argued before the Supreme Court -- 25 of which he won -- Yoo said he never pushed the court to adopt "big new theories" but rather argued the facts of his cases.
"He's the type of person that business conservatives and judicial-restraint conservatives will like but the social conservatives may not like," Yoo said.
"What the social conservatives want is someone who will overturn Roe. v. Wade and change the court's direction on privacy," he added. "But he represents the Washington establishment.
Well I didnt know there were different classes of conservatives. It is that statement that worries me, I fear this Roberts may be a wolf in sheeps clothes. Only Time will Tell.
Naral and the Death Cults are less then happy with him,They have on their site, a petition opposing him.
Other opinions are mixed, Sen Klinton has a wait and see attitude, as does Chuckie "cheese" Schumer other demorats opposed him, republicrats like him.
One interesting Quote: "This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
PPFA Karen Pearl Representative (Interview this a.m. with Michael Graham~Wmal ) Is walking cautiously presurring the senate to pick him apart to get answers. Are they looking for someone who agrees with them exclusively? Seems so. She kept pushing the point that they want someone who will support the feminists, baby killers. Michael kept bring up the constitution. He later compared them to the Taliban.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902065_pf.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/19/national/w174544D67.DTL
One thing everyone is wondering about is his stand on Pro-life issues.
In 1991, John G. Roberts Jr told the Supreme Court that its historic decision supporting a woman's right to an abortion was "wrongly decided and should be overruled." But in 2003 he admitted that he made the administration's case against Roe v. Wade only because that was his responsibility as its lawyer.
( i.e. It was his Job).
In his confirmation hearings for a federal judgeship in April 2003, Roberts maintained that he always separates his personal beliefs from his duty to follow the law -- including Roe v. Wade , which he described as a long-settled precedent.
Can he Rule according to the Constitution?
As a lawyer "Passion" has been a word associated with his litigation practices. However as one of the SCOTUS he will not be involved personally as an attorney, he will be asked to decide independantly and according to the constitution.
In the past he has voted in favor of corporations over a toad~ A blow to the ECO-NAZIS~ But by the same token he also wrote in favor of a mining company in its efforts to bar lawsuits by local citizens against a type of mineral extraction that involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the debris in streams.
He also advised Jeb Bush on how the Florida legislature could name George W. Bush the winner at time when Republicans feared the courts might force a different choice.
According to the Washington Post, Democrats as well as Republicans -- signed a letter calling him "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and hailing his "unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."
The fact that DemoRats like him worries me a bit.
John C. Yoo, a conservative professor of law at University of California at Berkeley who served in the Justice Department in the current administration, emphasizes what he called Roberts's traditional approach to the law. In the 39 cases that Roberts argued before the Supreme Court -- 25 of which he won -- Yoo said he never pushed the court to adopt "big new theories" but rather argued the facts of his cases.
"He's the type of person that business conservatives and judicial-restraint conservatives will like but the social conservatives may not like," Yoo said.
"What the social conservatives want is someone who will overturn Roe. v. Wade and change the court's direction on privacy," he added. "But he represents the Washington establishment.
Well I didnt know there were different classes of conservatives. It is that statement that worries me, I fear this Roberts may be a wolf in sheeps clothes. Only Time will Tell.
Naral and the Death Cults are less then happy with him,They have on their site, a petition opposing him.
Other opinions are mixed, Sen Klinton has a wait and see attitude, as does Chuckie "cheese" Schumer other demorats opposed him, republicrats like him.
One interesting Quote: "This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
PPFA Karen Pearl Representative (Interview this a.m. with Michael Graham~Wmal ) Is walking cautiously presurring the senate to pick him apart to get answers. Are they looking for someone who agrees with them exclusively? Seems so. She kept pushing the point that they want someone who will support the feminists, baby killers. Michael kept bring up the constitution. He later compared them to the Taliban.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902065_pf.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/19/national/w174544D67.DTL
posted by KC at 10:26 AM
<< Home