• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Supreme Court Nomination Announced

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Bush just nominated John G. Roberts Jr to the Supreme Court. I just looked for information on him and found very little. Seems he is against abortion but vowed to uphold Supreme Court precedent. He also was part of a ruling that upheld the arrest and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating French fries on public transportation. That's all I found.

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070102247.html
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Let the smearing begin....
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Supreme Court Nomination

cnredd said:
Let the smearing begin....
Interesting, you assume that is all we want to do. An interesting note on this Roberts guy (who I honestly don't know a great deal about...some, but not much) is that he sits on the DC Circuit court, which is known as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. And on a ironic note, there is another John Roberts who is a prominent spiritualist.

Some more info on this guy is that he served as white house associate counsel and has clerked for the current cheif justice. He comes from within the Bush white house in a sense because he was part of the legal team that helped write the briefs for Bush v. Gore the decision that landed Bush in the white house. Some info on his abortion stances, and yes, I do mean stances...
cnn said:
"NARAL alleged that Roberts had actively worked to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that struck down state laws outlawing abortion."

He said in 1990 that the Roe decision "was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

In his 2003 confirmation hearing, however, he told senators he was acting as an advocate for his client, rather than presenting his own positions.
Liberal groups and conservative activism groups will likely attack him on this issue most heavily even though there really isn't any legal room for abortion anymore thanks to O'Connor's court.

Another issue that may come up is environmental concerns and general immunity of government from suit in court. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations. He also represented as a private lawyer corporations accused of environmental contamination.

Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants. Source=independentjudiciary.com
He has taken some stances that were completely overruled by the Supreme Court and it will be interesting to see the reaction to that by the Democrats (I know my position on two of them). I love the fact he did pro-bono work and shows he has empathy for his fellow man and isn't someone who just sits on high judging others.

The only other problem that may arrise is the fact he is a member of two pro-corporate and anti-regulatory groups (one of them being the evil (jk) Federalist society). Should be interesting to see whether that comes into play.

Now did that attack him? Nope, just giving some info.
 
Last edited:

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
John G. Roberts Jr. reversed a District Court's order that enemy combatants "could not be tried by a military commission unless a competent tribunal determined he was not a prisoner of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners."

Source:
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp

Then download:
04-5393a Hamdan, Salim Ahmed vs. Rumsfeld, Donald H.

When I try to add this as an attachment, it says the file is too big to download. Anyone know of another way I can add this .pdf file so everyone can read the ruling?
 
Last edited:

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Umm...actually we don't know that. He was a member of the court that reversed it, but only the other two judges wrote anything on it...Randolph and Williams wrote about it, not Roberts.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ShamMol said:
Umm...actually we don't know that. He was a member of the court that reversed it, but only the other two judges wrote anything on it...Randolph and Williams wrote about it, not Roberts.
He was a part of the panel that ruled on it and there was no dissenting opinion, so he concurred with it.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alex said:
He was a part of the panel that ruled on it and there was no dissenting opinion, so he concurred with it.
Yes, I am saying that he can distance himself from the ruling by saying that he agreed with the outcome, but not necessarily the way it got there. Undoubtedly, the question will arise why he didn't write a consenting opinion, but the simple answer is that he felt it wasn't necessary and would have been a waste of time thanks to there already having two.

What did you think of my other information?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Supreme Court Nomination

ShamMol said:
Now did that attack him? Nope, just giving some info.
I commend you...but keep in mind my comment was not directed at you...not even directed to anyone just on this website...I was referring to the media in general.

Do I need to wait 24 hours and come back with examples of "smearing" or will you acknowledge that there will be "smearing" taking place?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Supreme Court Nomination

Once I have a better understanding of the man, I will make my judgement. I am tending to believe that he is a good jurist overall with a strong legal background, but one that has some very complicated issues attached to him. I think he will be a difficult fight and I am afraid that for a jurist he may be far too strict-interpreationism. But, let me figure out some more about him and I will come to a conclusion.

Plus, I want to see what he says at the hearings.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Just went over to DU.

They're collectively pulling their hair out...Here's a post from "ClintonTyree"

just what we need. A ****ing whacko fundie for the next 30 years or so returning the country back to the 19th century. Why do they all have to be so ****ing REGRESSIVE?

What is it with these people, that they're so scared of the present and the future? They want to return to the days of robber-barons, slave labor, NO WOMAN'S RIGHTS, ****, no rights for anyone!

Godamn it, if these ****ers want to pick a fight, I'll knock the snot out these pricks. I've had it with these asswipes


I think someone's ritalin prescription has run out...
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
I am afraid that for a jurist he may be far too strict-interpreationism.
Yeah, the last thing Dems want is judges that strictly interpret the Constitution. That would be an extremist jurist wouldn’t it ShamMol?
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ShamMol said:
Yes, I am saying that he can distance himself from the ruling by saying that he agreed with the outcome, but not necessarily the way it got there. Undoubtedly, the question will arise why he didn't write a consenting opinion, but the simple answer is that he felt it wasn't necessary and would have been a waste of time thanks to there already having two.

What did you think of my other information?
If he is for religous ceremonies in public school graduations, I don't like that. His Pro Bono work is admirable. His qualifications seem excellent. I honestly do not take much of a judge's past to mean very much when they sit on The Supreme Court. Judge's ideolologies tend to change when they are appointed to the High Court. I am only listing these posts as information.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Supreme Court Nomination

I'll go after posting this. Another view that has been posed is that he is being offered up as the conservative lamb so to speak so that Bush can nominate Gonzales either for this appointment, or the next one. Basically, bait and switch. That came from Nina Totenburg of NPR. And read all the info I posted on him in Post number 3 (Post #3
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GPS_Flex said:
Yeah, the last thing Dems want is judges that strictly interpret the Constitution. That would be an extremist jurist wouldn’t it ShamMol?
Note the "far too" part of that post. An extreme view of either loose or strict interpretationism is activism in my opinion, and you would know that if you read my response to you yesterday. Woops. Here it is for your enjoyment.

Post From Yesterday Regarding Judges
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
Here's a post from "ClintonTyree"
The funny thing is, "ClintonTyree" probably doesn’t know anything about the new Justice. He sure sounds like he’s ready to smear though.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
John G. Roberts Jr. helped reverse a "District Court's dismissal of [prisoner's] civil rights action for damages arising out of [prisoner's] allegedly unlawful confinement at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility." The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Source:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200506.htm

Then download:
03-5370a Taylor, Milton J. vs. US Prob Off
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
John G. Roberts Jr. concurred with:
"The State Property Fund of Ukraine (SPF) appeals from a judgment in favor of TMR Energy Limited (TMR), a Cyprian corporation, in an action TMR
brought to confirm an arbitration award it obtained against the SPF in Sweden. The SPF claims the district court should have dismissed the case either for want of personal jurisdiction because the SPF did not have minimum contacts with the United States or because the District of Columbia is a forum non conveniens. On the merits, the SPF contends the district court
should have refused to confirm the arbitration award because the arbitrators' determination of liability exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement and violated public policy. We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment of the district court."

Source:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200506.htm

Then download:
03-7191a TMR Engy Ltd vs. St Prop Fund Ukraine
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
John G. Roberts Jr. affirmed a district court's ruling that allowed "admitting evidence against [person] in a bank robbery case. Two of the rulings relate to out-of court identifications - one by a bank teller who selected [person] from a photographic array, the other by a drug store employee who selected one of the robbers from bank surveillance photographs as the purchaser of items from the drug store that were used during the robbery. The district court also denied [person's] motion to suppress physical evidence seized from a car he had loaned to his brother, and allowed the government to present evidence of a second, uncharged bank robbery, for the purpose of establishing [person's] identity as one of the robbers in the charged crime."

Source:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200506.htm

Then download:
04-3067a USA vs. Lawson, Willie
 
Last edited:

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ShamMol said:
An extreme view of either loose or strict interpretationism is activism in my opinion
I’ll ask a simple question. Do you think the Constitution was a vehicle by which the Citizens, through their respective states, enumerated the powers they were granting to the federal government or do you think it was a vehicle by which the Federal Government granted rights to it’s citizens?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GPS_Flex said:
I’ll ask a simple question. Do you think the Constitution was a vehicle by which the Citizens, through their respective states, enumerated the powers they were granting to the federal government or do you think it was a vehicle by which the Federal Government granted rights to it’s citizens?
First one...hands down...
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
John G. Roberts Jr. helped confirmed a conviction "from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appellant-Defendant [person] challenges his criminal conviction on two grounds: First, he submits that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a police officer and of a cooperating witness. Second, he submits that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence regarding Defendant's prior bad acts when Defendant was notified of the nature of the evidence only shortly before the court commenced voir dire examination of the jury. For the reasons set forth below, this Court affirms [person's] conviction and remands the record to the District Court for re-sentencing in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Booker."

Source:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200506.htm

Then download:
04-3135b USA vs. Watson, Talib D.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Remember when I asked if I should wait 24 hours and post people's "smear" comments?....Here we are after THREE HOURS...many sources

a partisan right wing tool
He's a mob lawyer, plain and simple
he's the perfect cookie cutter conservative mimicking the party line.
This nomination is as "in your face" as it is possible to get.
A hrad right wingnut
a.k.a. jackbooted goose-stepping blackshirt thug
you can tell with that blank stare, there's nothing upstairs but a preprogrammed neo-bot.
whacko fundie
canada is looking better all the time.
What the fuk? Hello? O'Connor to this Nazi?? What can be done?
He is so far right that he could shake hands with Adolph.
Looks like a wild-eyed child molester to me
The only upside is that it will be easier to fight a white guy than a woman or a Latino
Jesus, this guy is a Bircher. Say good-bye to privacy, the environment,
reproductive rights, labor unions, and most everything else that made this
country great. Say hello to Nazi Germany.
Ultra-partisan, right-wing, sparse record. I wonder if he's got a porn collection.


I'm glad there's no "smearing", though....
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, I'm going to withhold my judgement until I learn more. You have to wait a day or so before the most obvious BS gets filtered out. The less obvious BS usually never gets filtered out, but hey, what can you do?

I think some of these anti-Roberts people are basing their opinions on his photograph. He's white, male, and actually looks (visually) like a hard-right kind of guy. But that's no way to judge someone.

Just a quick question about this -

alex said:
He also was part of a ruling that upheld the arrest and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating French fries on public transportation.
Is this true?? There has to be something more to this one. Or are you just kidding?
 
Last edited:

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
GPS_Flex said:
The funny thing is, "ClintonTyree" probably doesn’t know anything about the new Justice. He sure sounds like he’s ready to smear though.
Umm...you obviously didn't read the post. It laid out my views, not the fictional character you seem to have made up in your mind that I am.
GPS_Flex said:
I’ll ask a simple question. Do you think the Constitution was a vehicle by which the Citizens, through their respective states, enumerated the powers they were granting to the federal government or do you think it was a vehicle by which the Federal Government granted rights to it’s citizens?
And I already answered this so many times. Both. Simple enough. And please read my prior posts, it may help clear up your questions.

I want people to realize something-I haven't attacked this guy. I am not going to debate the constitution except in the regards to activism on the judiciary in this thread. I will post in this thread what I think about judges, period. Let me repost my beliefs.

"If you can't tell by now, I am a firm believer in the fact that strict constructionism and loose interpretation are both wrong. I say it doesn't matter. What does matter is basing each decision not on rhetoric or bashing of colleagues (had to throw that in there because I hate that Scalia does that-brings shame to the court), but turning on specific facts in a case. You don't institute your own views as a justice, you institute the correct legal views."
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Originally Posted by GPS_Flex
The funny thing is, "ClintonTyree" probably doesn’t know anything about the new Justice. He sure sounds like he’s ready to smear though.


ShamMol said:
Umm...you obviously didn't read the post. It laid out my views, not the fictional character you seem to have made up in your mind that I am.
Flex was referring to post #10, which is mine. It has nothing to do with you...

Who's winning? Conceit or Paranoia?
 
Top Bottom