Bush nominates Roberts for Supreme Court

[belverron]

Honestly. We all know that the terms 'pro-life' / 'anti-abortion', and 'pro-family' / 'anti-gay' are the same in today's political climate. Merely different ways of saying things from different perspectives. What annoys him is your nitpicking, Dirty Name.

[bishop]

heh.. thank you belverron..


from what i've read about roberts these past couple days, barring any really controversial stuff coming into light, i don't have much of a problem with roberts. in fact, i think he's actually a pretty good pick to be honest. if anything, he seems to be someone that tends to follow court precedent more often than not. can't predict the future, but his record seems to show a fairly objective mindset.

[belverron]

As long as he isn't a good justice after the fashion in which Bush practices compassionate conservatism.

[RickSp]

There is often truth in satire.

ROBERTS VOWS TO BE MOST GENERIC WHITE MALE IN HISTORY OF SUPREME COURT

John G. Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court, made a case for his own nomination today, telling reporters that, if confirmed, he was determined to be “the most generic white male in the history of the Supreme Court.” With a beaming President Bush at his side, Judge Roberts said that if he serves on the nation’s highest court, “The nondescript American white male, who is woefully underrepresented in this country at present, will finally have a voice.” Judge Roberts summarized the life experiences that had put him in touch with the needs of the generic white male, including a brief period in the early 1980’s when he modeled generic men’s sportswear for K-Mart, as well as a later stint as a downloadable generic white male icon for ClipArt.

[bishop]

Quote by: belverron As long as he isn't a good justice after the fashion in which Bush practices compassionate conservatism.

well, so far his rulings seem to have been balanced for the most part.

(i'm a republican, just not in the mold of these rino's running the show today. i loathe the christian right and the supply side cult.)

i'm not sure it's possible to do something like overturn roe v. wade (which i wouldn't want to see) or overturn affirmative action (which i would like to see), but my hope is that he wouldn't rule in the way that sandra o'conner just did where she cast the deciding vote permitting the state to confiscate private property and sell it to another private party. in that decision, renquist, scalia and thomas were in line with public opinion (and the nation's tradition of private property).

[belverron]

Yeah, I hated that ruling, too. I need to read it. It's so outrageous that I should at least know their reasoning.

[bishop]

well, if you do, let us know if you find any rational argument on the majority's part.

imo, it'd be one thing to confiscate private property for public usage. what this ruling allowed for was something completely different.

[belverron]

Here's the ruling. The relevant part is in section III.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=04-108

It doesn't sound all THAT bad, really. Were you guys aware of this part?

Quote by: SUSETTE KELO, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al. The city of New London (hereinafter City) sits at the junction of the Thames River and the Long Island Sound in southeastern Connecticut. Decades of economic decline led a state agency in 1990 to designate the City a "distressed municipality." In 1996, the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which had been located in the Fort Trumbull area of the City and had employed over 1,500 people. In 1998, the City's unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was at its lowest since 1920. These conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London, and particularly its Fort Trumbull area, for economic revitalization.

This course of action wasn't undertaken lightly, though I'm not sure that means I approve.

Sorry for the tangent.

[Sisyphus]

It seems to me him "not remembering if he belonged to The Federalist Society" is a way for Roberts to play to both sides until he is nominated. The Federalist Society is composed of conservatives to combat with liberalism and it seems he is embrassed or ashamed to be part of that orginazation. Abortion does seem to be the deciding factor these days, which it shouldn't since we have more to worry about since the jihadists declared a holy war on us. I think thats the conservative agenda showing through...just another chance to attack the left wing on their "crazy moral and religious values." I consider myself a liberal moderate and all this hoppla about abortion is ridiculous when the US has such bigger issues to look at.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: bishop my hope is that he wouldn't rule in the way that sandra o'conner just did where she cast the deciding vote permitting the state to confiscate private property and sell it to another private party

Check the decision, bishop. O'Connor wrote a scathing DISSENT. Is it asking too much to tell ya' get yer facts straight?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...4-108#dissent1

[bishop]

my mistake.. thanks jack.