- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,963
- Reaction score
- 855
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
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.cnredd said:Let the smearing begin....
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.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.
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.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
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.
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.alex said:He was a part of the panel that ruled on it and there was no dissenting opinion, so he concurred with it.
ShamMol said:Now did that attack him? Nope, just giving some info.
Yeah, the last thing Dems want is judges that strictly interpret the Constitution. That would be an extremist jurist wouldn’t it ShamMol?ShamMol said:I am afraid that for a jurist he may be far too strict-interpreationism.
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?
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.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?
ShamMol said:Here's a post from "ClintonTyree"
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?ShamMol said:An extreme view of either loose or strict interpretationism is activism in my opinion
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?
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.
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:The funny thing is, "ClintonTyree" probably doesn’t know anything about the new Justice. He sure sounds like he’s ready to smear though.
And I already answered this so many times. Both. Simple enough. And please read my prior posts, it may help clear up your questions.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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?