• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Let the Fun begin

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
President Bush nominates a Conservative judge who is clean as a whistle...Let the fun begin..............

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html

Bush nominates Roberts to Supreme Court
Appeals court judge would replace retiring O'Connor

Wednesday, July 20, 2005; Posted: 12:06 a.m. EDT (04:06 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday chose as his first Supreme Court nominee U.S. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr., a conservative whose selection pleased Republicans and prompted Democrats to vow a thorough review in the Senate.
 
Who is he? I have never heard of him before. I guess Bush found a really strong conservative that had the same veiws as himself.
 
CanadianGuy said:
Who is he? I have never heard of him before. I guess Bush found a really strong conservative that had the same veiws as himself.
Click to expand...

Check out the link I posted........
 
Here's my summary on him earlier:


The last two sound of an idealogue to me.
 
Don't want to take this off topic too much, but what's this about a girl eating a French fry?
 
galenrox said:
But you also have to recognize that he did those last two as an attorney, either for Regan or Bush Pt. 1. As an attorney, he argues the side that his client wants him to argue, and those were the stances of those administrations.
Click to expand...
Of course, a person wouldn't sign an amicus brief if they were not to believe in that or they're a complete tool. So which is worse, believing in these things or just doing them for the paycheck?


Here are some more:


In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory, but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property interests than Supreme Court law at the time.


Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)
 

Notwithstanding the "ideologue" part of this comment, did anyone else notice how shuamort included this statement for effect?
Notice the implication that Roberts was SOMEHOW part of the arresting & handcuffing of the minor? He's SUCH a bad man to come down from the court building with his trusty handcuffs and arrest this girl all on his own.

Does this comment mention that a UNANIMOUS PANEL agreed with it or does he only tell half of the story?

As Special Assistant to Attorney General Smith in the Justice Department, and as counsel in the Reagan White House, Roberts compiled a staunch record of hostility to civil rights. For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, don't let FACTS get in the way. Did it happen? Yup. Did he decide on the case? Yup. Did I imply that Roberts arrested and handcuffed the girl? No. Sorry if you're that sensitive about things that you have to read between imaginary lines.

cnredd said:
Does this comment mention that a UNANIMOUS PANEL agreed with it or does he only tell half of the story?
Click to expand...
Are we talking about a unanimous panel or Roberts? Can Roberts think for himself?
 
shuamort said:
Are we talking about a unanimous panel or Roberts? Can Roberts think for himself?
Click to expand...

You didn't MENTION that he was not alone in the verdict...That implies that he ruled solo.

YOUR quote...
John Roberts: Denied the civil rights claim of the 12 year old girl who ate a French fry in DC

WRONG and MISLEADING...

For those who live in reality...
John Roberts: One memeber of a three-member panel who unanimously denied the civil rights claim of the 12 year old girl who ate a French fry in DC
 
galenrox said:
I wouldn't say that representing your client, regardless of your own personal opinion, would make you a tool, cause as a lawyer that's your job!
Click to expand...

Absolutely. As a nurse UK law demands that I will nurse anybody regardless of my personal feelings. The only real opt out is abortion - I could refuse to take part in the actual abortion, although I couldn't refuse to care for the woman pre or post abortion.

People in the legal professionsa probably apply a similar standard to themselves.

BTW - what's this about a French fry?
 
cnredd said:
You didn't MENTION that he was not alone in the verdict...That implies that he ruled solo.
Click to expand...
Oh, so when we mention Ginsburg or Rehnquist, we CANNOT forget to mention that they're part of the Supreme Court and don't have independent voices? I call BS.

cnredd said:
YOUR quote...
John Roberts: Denied the civil rights claim of the 12 year old girl who ate a French fry in DC

WRONG and MISLEADING...
Click to expand...
No, that's correct. Sorry you feel the need to post hoc justify his decision. In fact, after that decision, the law was repealed so that something THAT STUPID would never happen again.

cnredd said:
For those who live in reality...
John Roberts: One memeber of a three-member panel who unanimously denied the civil rights claim of the 12 year old girl who ate a French fry in DC
Click to expand...
For those who live in reality, that still means he did it, belived in it, and voted to convict.
 
Yes, but when you're working with (or is it on?) someone, you're not supporting their political beliefs, you're supporting their life and health. As it were in this case, it's a difference between working at a hospital and working at an abortion clinic. Roberts chose to work for GHW Bush.
 
There's something to be said about eschew personal responsibility when it comes to advancing a cause one doesn't believe in. I call it being a tool.
 
I agree that a lawyer's duty is to represent his client. Johnny Cochran and Alan Derschewitz surely did not believe OJ Simpson to be the patron saint of innocence.

I too would like to know more about the french fry incident. Just out of idle curiosity. Anyone got a link handy?
 
Here ya go:
 
shuamort said:
Oh, so when we mention Ginsburg or Rehnquist, we CANNOT forget to mention that they're part of the Supreme Court and don't have independent voices? I call BS.
Click to expand...
You'd would be correct if not for the fact that you're so wrong.

1)You don't say "Ginsberg ruled..."...You say "The Supreme Court ruled..."
Just like you shouldn't say,"Roberts denied the claim"...you say, "Roberts was on a panel that denied the claim".

2)Ginsberg & Rehnquist are already in....there viewpoints, nomatter how narrow or wide, can be criticized without knowing all of the facts, but their job will not be in jeopardy because of it. Roberts doesn't have that "luxury"
shuamort said:
No, that's correct. Sorry you feel the need to post hoc justify his decision. In fact, after that decision, the law was repealed so that something THAT STUPID would never happen again.
Click to expand...

If there was a law that stated that you cannot skip down the street, and you were caught skipping down the street, I'd HAVE to uphold the decision to arrest. UNTIL the law gets changed, nomatter how dumb it may be, a judge MUST go by the law. I find that admirable.(Yes, I would agree that the cops arresting you are total dweebs, but they do have the right to uphold the law)
shuamort said:
For those who live in reality, that still means he did it, belived in it, and voted to convict.
Click to expand...
For someone that likes to point out everyone else's factual mistakes, I truly think its time for some mirror-looking...

He did NOT "vote to convict". He denied her claim that her rights were violated. Overzealous cops? Absolutely. Did they deny her of her rights? Nope.
 
Wrong, take a look at the most recent decision re: eminent domain and the fact that the "liberal" justices were lambasted (and rightly so) for their decision and the fact that the "conservative" justices vociferously announced their dissent.

Roberts chose his bed. He can lie in it. It's called personal responsibility. Look it up.



You're welcome to find that admirable. Luckily judges have had the ability since Marbury v. Madison to declare laws to be unconstitutional which that law should have been deemed as.



cnredd said:
For someone that likes to point out everyone else's factual mistakes, I truly think its time for some mirror-looking...
Click to expand...
Personal attacks? Let's keep with the facts, mmm kay?

cnredd said:
He did NOT "vote to convict". He denied her claim that her rights were violated.
Click to expand...
Sure he did vote to convict. As did the previous judge to the case. And her rights were violated. There's an obvious reason that the law was removed after this case.
cnredd said:
Overzealous cops? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Are you blaming the police here? That would go against your apparent opinions of personal responsibility up above.
cnredd said:
Did they deny her of her rights? Nope.
Click to expand...
Yup. They did.
 
Bottom line is Judge Roberts is a highly qualified nominee with impeccable credentials and should be confirmed easily much to the dismay of the left........


Stay tuned...........
 
galenrox said:
well, let's not pretend that he's completely qualified, he just became a judge in 2003, and most high level jobs you can't get with only 2 years experience.
Click to expand...
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/06/potential_nomin_2.html

He's given oral arguements before the federal supreme court in over 30 cases, and actually used to hold a clerk position under rehnquist in a lower court.

He has a huge amount of legal experience.... he's just only been on the bench for 2 years.
 
And that worries a few people, though I don't really know why. I think that this should be an easy confirmation, but I want to see what comes out in the hearings. He hasn't been on the bench long, but that doesn't usually, or used to, matter. They used to appoint politicians to the bench with basically no legal experience, so this isn't much of a step. I think he is a good candidate with the right legal credentials, even if I don't agree with some of his legal findings. For example, he has held that people have no right to sue the goverment over the environment. But again, a good legal mind, so I really applaud Bush on picking someone that should be an easy confirmation.

And as a p.s. people should read some of his written opinions, they are quite interesting even if they will eventually be overruled by the Supreme court.
 
Navy Pride said:
Bottom line is Judge Roberts is a highly qualified nominee with impeccable credentials and should be confirmed easily much to the dismay of the left........


Stay tuned...........
Click to expand...
Right, despite my disagreements on some of the things he's done, I think he's an acceptible candidate for the job and should be voted in as the next justice of the supreme court (barring some huge revelation that I doubt will surface).
 
Is there honestly NO ONE in this entire country who is better than this guy?


Arresting 12 Year Olds for eating French Fries is a bit stupid, in my humble opinion.
Another Conservative Supreme Court Judge. T.T
 
Well, AE, I made that argument in another thread. This guy is the safe choice, not the correct one.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Is there honestly NO ONE in this entire country who is better than this guy?


Arresting 12 Year Olds for eating French Fries is a bit stupid, in my humble opinion.
Another Conservative Supreme Court Judge. T.T
Click to expand...
He didn't have anything to do with that arrest, this has already been explained... All he did was serve on the judicial panel which ruled on the civil rights case filed on behalf of the 12 year old. The panel decided that the arrest did not violate the girl's constitutional rights.
 
That would be a correct decision. If a police officer has probable cause to suspect that there is something in the car, he can perform a search under rulings of the court.
That was an incorrect legal decision which likely will be taken up by the Supreme Court, don't know if it already has. That theoretically is wrong, but the facts of the case may have been sufficient to warrant a different ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…