Let the Fun begin

[shuamort]

(For the record, those are not my words in ShamMol's post, but from the article found here: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr. )

 

[ShamMol]

Yeah, just giving some explanations as to why they are good/bad decisions.

 

[Alex]

Here's my summary on him earlier:



The last two sound of an idealogue to me.

I believe the french fry girl case is an argument in his favor. In the ruling he mentioned that "[n]o one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation." This means that he went against his personal judgement and ruled in favor of the law. Hopefully he will carry this over to the Supreme Court.

Source:
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/roberts/

This site offers many of his decisions.

 

[shuamort]

Source:
http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/candidates/roberts/

This site offers many of his decisions.

Thanks for the site, this one is interesting:

Damages
Jung v. Mundy, Holt & Mance, P.C., 372 F.3d 429 (CADC 2004): In an opinion joined by Judges Ginsburg and Sentelle, Judge Roberts applied circuit precedent to reverse a district court's grant of summary judgment in a legal malpractice action. Finding that the plaintiff had stated a valid cause of action for a "continuing tort," Judge Roberts held that the plaintiff--who had failed to file suit within the three-year statute of limitations period for malpractice actions--was nevertheless eligible to recover for "injuries attributable to the part of the continuing tort that was committed within the limitations period."

Assuming that's true, he's what the right wing folks have been calling an "activist judge". He ignored the letter of the law and wrote his own.

Interesting....

 

[Navy Pride]

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.

He has actually argued 49 cases in front of the SCOTUS.

 

[ElGringo17]

He ignored the letter of the law and wrote his own.

Do you self identified homosexual liberals have any proof of this in writing?