NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is a rather exhaustive article about the life and times of President Bush's nominee for the US Supreme Court, John G. Roberts. After reading this article, I have trouble understanding why anyone would have a problem with this nomination. Hell, I'd vote for this guy for President if he ran. He's by all accounts very bright, non-ideological and non-doctrinaire.


Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th)

By TODD S. PURDUM, JODI WILGOREN and PAM BELLUCK
Published: July 21, 2005

This article was reported and written by Todd S. Purdum, Jodi Wilgoren and Pam Belluck.

WASHINGTON, July 20 - He is the son of a company man, and he has lived a loyalist's life. His teachers remember him as the brightest of boys, but his classmates say he never lorded it over them. He was always conservative, but not doctrinaire. He was raised and remains a practicing Roman Catholic who declines, friends say, to wear his faith on his sleeve.

And like his first judicial mentor, Henry J. Friendly of the federal appeals court in New York, John G. Roberts is an erudite, Harvard-trained, Republican corporate-lawyer-turned-judge, with a punctilious, pragmatic view of the law.

"I do not have an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation; the appropriate approach depends to some degree on the specific provision at issue," Judge Roberts wrote in response to a written question during his 2003 confirmation to the federal appeals court in Washington. "Some provisions of the Constitution provide considerable guidance on how they should be construed; others are less precise.

"I would not hew to a particular 'school' of interpretation," he added, "but would follow the approach or approaches that seemed most suited in the particular case to correctly discerning the meaning of the provision at issue."

[ This article is 6 pages long. To read the rest of the article, please go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th). ]

Yep, pretty exhaustive.

From his history as a lawyer he seems to be overly obsessed with tossing out Roe v Wade, and though he might not have been actionary about it on his previous post, he had no place to be, once he hits the USSC he can easily do his damndest to get it overturned not to mention any other number of other issues with "no constitutional basis." From things I have heard about his lawyer days he is obsessed with "strict" constitutional interpretation bordering on idealogy like scalia.

You guys are getting me all excited. Are you trying to give me hope? Trying to make me think that perhaps there IS hope for the SCOTUS after-all? Is there hope and reason to believe the apparition that perhaps we CAN turn that lumbering bulk, that keel-less wreck of a vessel, and turn it around and back from the shores of eminent destruction on the ideological rocks of immoral-facilitators and the crags of wanton covetousness, and to sail it back out of the Sea of all things vile and decrepit?


:p LOL, damn, I'm nearly poetic aren't I :D

Ihatevacations']From his history as a lawyer he seems to be overly obsessed with tossing out Roe v Wade, and though he might not have been actionary about it on his previous post, he had no place to be, once he hits the USSC he can easily do his damndest to get it overturned not to mention any other number of other issues with "no constitutional basis." From things I have heard about his lawyer days he is obsessed with "strict" constitutional interpretation bordering on idealogy like scalia.

Face it, you’d have found something wrong with any Bush nominee. I’ve been following your posts, and you are an immature political thinker at best. You seem to follow the Democratic party to a key, and when they do something you don’t like, you either try to justify it or blame it on Republicans, with rare exception.

COMMENTARY: This is a rather exhaustive article about the life and times of President Bush's nominee for the US Supreme Court, John G. Roberts. After reading this article, I have trouble understanding why anyone would have a problem with this nomination. Hell, I'd vote for this guy for President if he ran. He's by all accounts very bright, non-ideological and non-doctrinaire.



Eutrusca,
Thanks for posting this article. I learned what I needed to know about the man. I hope the appointment doesn't take too long to be accepted, but knowing politicians these days, it'll get drug out as long as there is publicity to be made from it. :(

Face it, you’d have found something wrong with any Bush nominee. I’ve been following your posts, and you are an immature political thinker at best. You seem to follow the Democratic party to a key, and when they do something you don’t like, you either try to justify it or blame it on Republicans, with rare exception.
And I, likewise, have been following YOUR posts and you are a partyline tool so your opinion of me doesn't really affect me

My opinion of John Roberts, Jr. as an appointee: "Meh."

It is almost impossible to tell what kind of SC justice he will be, as he has very little record as a judge at all. Some of his briefs as a lawyer are certainly eyebow-raising, but they do not necessarily represent his opinion or how he would decide in said cases. The fact that he won't answer questions as to his own personal opinion on some issues is actually encouraging, as it might mean that he will be a judge beholden to the law, rather than his own personal opinions (unless you want to go the conspiracy theory route and assume that he won't answer because he thinks you won't like the response). O'Connor herself seems to approve of him, other than the fact that he has a penis.

He's certainly not what I expected - and that's a good thing. Like I said, there are a few things that kind of raise my eyebrows, but without some new information, nothing that I'm going to get out the protest signs over.

"Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith"

You'd think people would immediately be wary of the person to become one of those in charge of their personal liberties when he's described as that...

"Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith"

You'd think people would immediately be wary of the person to become one of those in charge of their personal liberties when he's described as that...

Only if such people are militant atheists.

Most of us are aware that one can be personally very religious without forcing it upon others.

Ihatevacations']And I, likewise, have been following YOUR posts and you are a partyline tool so your opinion of me doesn't really affect me

And, pray tell, just what party’s line do I follow?

I'm sure if he can assure the American people & the Senate that he doesn't have designs on trying to over-turn Roe vs. Wade he'll probably not have to much difficulty being confirmed. Of course as usual, that's just my opinion.

The majority of Americans (well any poll I've ever seen) don't want Roe vs. Wade over-turned.

One justice can't overturn a case like Roe vs. Wade by himself. Besides, if he did, the senate democrats would probably find some way to block enforcement.

One justice can't overturn a case like Roe vs. Wade by himself. Besides, if he did, the senate democrats would probably find some way to block enforcement.
But there is a Republican majority that would see to prevent that.

I'm sure if he can assure the American people & the Senate that he doesn't have designs on trying to over-turn Roe vs. Wade he'll probably not have to much difficulty being confirmed. Of course as usual, that's just my opinion.

The majority of Americans (well any poll I've ever seen) don't want Roe vs. Wade over-turned.

If he gets confirmed... that is when and only when we will really know how he views the law in this area. I see similar polls as well. Some leaning more pro-life while others pro-choice. The only sure thing is that it is a divisive issue. I personally don't want to see this proceeding turn into a circus. I will be glad however if the Senate judiciary committee does it job well. I want to hear them ask all the difficult questions and I would like to hear the nominee's response to them.
Though on a completely unrelated note: I have never understood why Senator Kennedy is on the committee. I just can never take the man seriously.... considering his checkered past. This is not to say he won't bring up valid questions...just that I don't take him seriously. Admittedly though he has staying power so he must make sense to someone :) Ok done with my hijacking sentiment :)

One justice can't overturn a case like Roe vs. Wade by himself. Besides, if he did, the senate democrats would probably find some way to block enforcement.
not by himself no, but with scalia, thomas, rehnquist, and some one else I am forgetting along with himself, they can

as it might mean that he will be a judge beholden to the law, rather than his own personal opinions
That is what scalia claims, adherring to the "strict" interpretation so well that it is an idealology

Ihatevacations']That is what scalia claims, adherring to the "strict" interpretation so well that it is an idealology

Scalia let's some pretty weird personal ideals get in the way. "Courts can't decide morality. Congress can't decide morality. State legislatures do!" Eh?

Anyways, like I said, it *might* mean that. It could be that he is giving the answers he thinks people want to hear. It could be that he truly believes that but doesn't actually do it. We'll just have to see.

Ihatevacations']not by himself no, but with scalia, thomas, rehnquist, and some one else I am forgetting along with himself, they can

[quote]as it might mean that he will be a judge beholden to the law, rather than his own personal opinions/quote]
That is what scalia claims, adherring to the "strict" interpretation so well that it is an idealology
Please. Scalia's 'strict' reading is an interpretation just like anyone elses. It isn't as if we can go in the wayback machine and ask them what the hell they mean by the establishment clause.

Please. Scalia's 'strict' reading is an interpretation just like anyone elses. It isn't as if we can go in the wayback machine and ask them what the hell they mean by the establishment clause.
I was making the point that scalia claims to go by a strict interpretation of hte constitution solely but mainly lets his conservative beliefs interfere more often than not

"Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith"

You'd think people would immediately be wary of the person to become one of those in charge of their personal liberties when he's described as that...
Oh no, forbit it that someone in charge actually has faith and can still be normal. That nevers happens these days. Most folks who even have a bit of faith in their religion are right-wing nut cases.


Except for John Kerry, he's catholic.


/sarcasm

Except for John Kerry, he's catholic.


John Kerry is a right-wing nutcase.

Oh no, forbit it that someone in charge actually has faith and can still be normal. That nevers happens these days. Most folks who even have a bit of faith in their religion are right-wing nut cases.


Except for John Kerry, he's catholic.


/sarcasm




You'll learn to ignore half of Fass's posts after a while :p

At first I thought the title said "Everything you wanted to know about Julia Roberts ( but were afaid to ask )!".

But anyways, I just hope John Roberts doesn't get too Pfukke'd up by opposition and the media.

i think hes the best that we liberals could have reasonably hoped for. he is a smart highly educated man dedicated to public service. bush could have done much much worse than this

and you never know. once the existing justices rough him up a bit in that zany hazing ritual they are famous for, he may turn out to be a true moderate who doesnt believe in changing the status quo

You'll learn to ignore half of Fass's posts after a while :p

Speak of the devil .... :p


Anyway, I find it funny that conservatives are challenging others about why anyone would oppose Roberts.

Why do you support him?

I doubt you know more about him than we do. Looking at Republican and conservative blogs there is a great deal of gloating that Roberts will be a Scalia/Rehnquist-type ideologue and will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Apparently it is only silly when liberals look at his record -- find it consistent with this view -- and are concerned that this may be true that it becomes silly. :headbang:

He was not confirmed twice beforehis third nomination put him on the DC Circuit. He has barely been there 2 years.

What I have seen of his decisions so far show an extreme loyalty to the Bush administrations positions on all issues. Not impressive. And cause for concern.

But I honestly haven't made my mind up. Why have you?

Speak of the devil .... :p


Anyway, I find it funny that conservatives are challenging others about why anyone would oppose Roberts.

Why do you support him?

I doubt you know more about him than we do. Looking at Republican and conservative blogs there is a great deal of gloating that Roberts will be a Scalia/Rehnquist-type ideologue and will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Apparently it is only silly when liberals look at his record -- find it consistent with this view -- and are concerned that this may be true that it becomes silly. :headbang:

He was not confirmed twice beforehis third nomination put him on the DC Circuit. He has barely been there 2 years.

What I have seen of his decisions so far show an extreme loyalty to the Bush administrations positions on all issues. Not impressive. And cause for concern.

But I honestly haven't made my mind up. Why have you?


I haven't, but when someone does just because a man has "faith", you can tell it's kinda loony, no?

and you never know. once the existing justices rough him up a bit in that zany hazing ritual they are famous for

What, you mean like making them carry a cherry between their butt cheeks and drop it in a beer mug? :D

What I have seen of his decisions so far show an extreme loyalty to the Bush administrations positions on all issues. Not impressive. And cause for concern.

Agreed.

I haven't, but when someone does just because a man has "faith", you can tell it's kinda loony, no?

Meh.

Like you'd be doing backflips if he was know as a devout athiest.

Your basic point that there is nothing wrong with having faith -- that it may even be an admirable quality -- is well-taken. (On the other hand, it is not necessarily a virtue and may be a flaw.)

I have the highest respect for many men defined by having faith.

But, of course it causes some concern, when the first three things one hears about someone is: Republican, conservative, and man of Christian faith. (Add to that long-time Bush and Reagan loyalist, corporate Washington insider, and former Rehnquist clerk.)

Although the vast majority of Republican, conservative, Christian men of faith are worthy of respect, more than enough have acted in manners to give those defined by those attributes something of a bad name.

Just as you would be concerned to hear a consumate Democrat, liberal, devout athiest was being nominated, those of us with other views have valid reason to be skeptical.

COMMENTARY: This is a rather exhaustive article about the life and times of President Bush's nominee for the US Supreme Court, John G. Roberts. After reading this article, I have trouble understanding why anyone would have a problem with this nomination. Hell, I'd vote for this guy for President if he ran. He's by all accounts very bright, non-ideological and non-doctrinaire.

Um. One article is not "all accounts."

There are many causes for concern about Roberts, but I won't argue them yet. I'm withholding judgment and don't feel like playing Devil's advocate.

Why are we supposed to decide whether we have any problem with his nomination within the first 48 hours after he is announced?

Just because the White House media machine is out trumpeting the guy (which they should be doing) doesn't mean the sun shines out his ass.


[ This article is 6 pages long. To read the rest of the article, please go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th). ]

GRRR. I wish you would stop linking articles that require subscriptions. You have a particular habit of this. It is really annoying.

Speak of the devil .... :p


Anyway, I find it funny that conservatives are challenging others about why anyone would oppose Roberts.

Why do you support him?

I doubt you know more about him than we do. Looking at Republican and conservative blogs there is a great deal of gloating that Roberts will be a Scalia/Rehnquist-type ideologue and will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Apparently it is only silly when liberals look at his record -- find it consistent with this view -- and are concerned that this may be true that it becomes silly. :headbang:

He was not confirmed twice beforehis third nomination put him on the DC Circuit. He has barely been there 2 years.

What I have seen of his decisions so far show an extreme loyalty to the Bush administrations positions on all issues. Not impressive. And cause for concern.

But I honestly haven't made my mind up. Why have you?
It's obvious that you did not read the article.

It only served to strengthen the arguments made for him, such as that he is not a very politically minded man, and that he has a great respect for the process of law. The article also said that he has many liberal and conservative friends and his conversations with them rarely turn political. It seems to me like he knows when and how to separate his ideas from his profession.

Here's a piece of the article:

In his confirmation testimony two years ago, he said that judges should be "ever mindful that they are insulated from democratic pressures precisely because the framers expected them to be discerning law, not shaping policy," and added: "That means that judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose their preferences from the bench."

That's my view of why he should be confirmed. We do believe some of the same ideas, but that doesn't make him some conservative looney.

Um. One article is not "all accounts."

There are many causes for concern about Roberts, but I won't argue them yet. I'm withholding judgment and don't feel like playing Devil's advocate.

Why are we supposed to decide whether we have any problem with his nomination within the first 48 hours after he is announced?

Just because the White House media machine is out trumpeting the guy (which they should be doing) doesn't mean the sun shines out his ass.




GRRR. I wish you would stop linking articles that require subscriptions. You have a particular habit of this. It is really annoying.
The subscription is free. Who knows, you might learn something from it.

It's obvious that you did not read the article.

It only served to strengthen the arguments made for him, such as that he is not a very politically minded man, and that he has a great respect for the process of law. The article also said that he has many liberal and conservative friends and his conversations with them rarely turn political. It seems to me like he knows when and how to separate his ideas from his profession.

Here's a piece of the article:

In his confirmation testimony two years ago, he said that judges should be "ever mindful that they are insulated from democratic pressures precisely because the framers expected them to be discerning law, not shaping policy," and added: "That means that judges should not look to their own personal views or preferences in deciding the cases before them. Their commission is no license to impose their preferences from the bench."

That's my view of why he should be confirmed. We do believe some of the same ideas, but that doesn't make him some conservative looney.

I did not read the article. I don't have the subscription.

I have read many articles about Roberts. As I have said, I am skeptical but haven't made up my mind. I merely raised some of the reasons why some might be concerned. I have not called him a conservative looney.

I don't think that is that standard: if you aren't a looney, your a Justice! :rolleyes:

Almost all appointees make statements like that. Apparently you support them all. :headbang:

The subscription is free. Who knows, you might learn something from it.

You have to enroll.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so smug. I am rather well informed about Roberts and I am learning more about him from other sources. How many of his DC Circuit opinions have you read so far?

But fine. I'll feel free to force you to subscribe to websites in order to participate in a discussion.

I did not read the article. I don't have the subscription.

I have read many articles about Roberts. As I have said, I am skeptical but haven't made up my mind. I merely raised some of the reasons why some might be concerned. I have not called him a conservative looney.

I don't think that is that standard: if you aren't a looney, your a Justice! :rolleyes:

Almost all appointees make statements like that. Apparently you support them all. :headbang:
I understand your right to be skeptical, and I wasn't trying to attack that. I know that you haven't called him a conservative looney, but I do not know if your beliefs fall in the same direction ;) .

I agree that almost all appointees make themselves out to be more than they probably are, but I honestly believe that this guy stands behind that phrase and that he treats law as a serious matter and not an opportunity to make his own laws. I believe that any potential justice who has that sort of respect for law should be appointed to the court that they seek, whether or not they're liberal or conservative.

The subscription is free. Who knows, you might learn something from it.
And requires one to give up personal information.


Use bugmenot. http://www.bugmenot.com/

You have to enroll.

Perhaps you shouldn't be so smug. I am rather well informed about Roberts and I am learning more about him from other sources. How many of his DC Circuit opinions have you read so far?

But fine. I'll feel free to force you to subscribe to websites in order to participate in a discussion.
I didn't say that you were ignorant, I said that it might teach you something you don't know. Don't get all defensive, it was a harmless comment.

And requires one to give up personal information.


Use bugmenot. http://www.bugmenot.com/
So stealing someone else's account information is cool? No thanks, I'd rather have them know where I am at all times.

So stealing someone else's account information is cool? No thanks, I'd rather have them know where I am at all times.
Stealing? Nah, people put them up (they register, then put the logins/passwords up there). The anti-registration movement on the internet is very strong.

Stealing? Nah, people put them up. The anti-registration movement on the internet is very strong.
oh, ok

You'll learn to ignore half of Fass's posts after a while :p

Neo Rogolia, if only you lived as you preached. Please, oh, please, ignore me - for my sake. Show some of that Christian love by sparing me.

Oh no, forbit it that someone in charge actually has faith and can still be normal. That nevers happens these days. Most folks who even have a bit of faith in their religion are right-wing nut cases.

Except for John Kerry, he's catholic.

/sarcasm

Newsflash: John Kerry is inconsequential to non-Americans. Nice US-centric attempt, though. If only it hadn't been so feeble.

Only if such people are militant atheists.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's the opposite. So your comment is nonsensical.

Most of us are aware that one can be personally very religious without forcing it upon others.

Because American fundamentalist Christians have such a good record when it comes to that. :rolleyes:

Newsflash: John Kerry is inconsequential to non-Americans. Nice US-centric attempt, though.


*looks at thread title and ascertains topic *

Looks at this post again... :confused:

Um. One article is not "all accounts."

There are many causes for concern about Roberts, but I won't argue them yet. I'm withholding judgment and don't feel like playing Devil's advocate.

Why are we supposed to decide whether we have any problem with his nomination within the first 48 hours after he is announced?

Just because the White House media machine is out trumpeting the guy (which they should be doing) doesn't mean the sun shines out his ass.

GRRR. I wish you would stop linking articles that require subscriptions. You have a particular habit of this. It is really annoying.
It's free. Why is that a problem for you? Besides, some of the best information on the Internet requires that you sign up ( usually free ) to be able to access it.

I don't expect anyone to decide anything within 48 hours, most especially on here. As with many of the articles to which I link, I simply found it interesting. I consider the New York Times to be a relatively unbiased source, perhaps a tad left-leaning in its editorial policy, but generally pretty accurate when it comes to actual reporting.

*looks at thread title and ascertains topic *

Looks at this post again... :confused:

John Kerry, not John Roberts. Read more carefully, perhaps?

Oh, well, John Roberts is inconsequential to non-Americans as well, so, go ahead and attack him. It'll be as futile as attacking John Kerry in trying to make whatever point it is you're trying to make to a non-American. Same thing when Republicans attack Democrats or vice versa, and it really doesn't drive any point across to a non-American.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's the opposite. So your comment is nonsensical.

And the only people who would be automatically afraid of a person whose faith is strong is one with no faith. Hence, only militant atheists would be instantly wary of a faithful person being in a government position.

Because American fundamentalist Christians have such a good record when it comes to that. :rolleyes:

So the minority (fundamentalists) are to be used to judge the majority of all people (those who follow a religion)?

And the only people who would be automatically afraid of a person whose faith is strong is one with no faith. Hence, only militant atheists would be instantly wary of a faithful person being in a government position.

Of course. A person in power who admits to being ruled by superstition is someone to be wary of.

So the minority (fundamentalists) are to be used to judge the majority of all people (those who follow a religion)?

A minority Roberts seems to be part of, at least by my Scandinavian standards. But, the US is a lot more religious, so perhaps he doesn't seem as loony to you.

Of course. A person in power who admits to being ruled by superstition is someone to be wary of.



A minority Roberts seems to be part of, at least by my Scandinavian standards. But, the US is a lot more religious, so perhaps he doesn't seem as loony to you.

Atheism as Religion requires a certain amount of faith. An Atheist can not catergorically prove that there is no God and vice versa.

You protest as if faith is a sign of weakness yet you practice it everyday. You can try and wriggle out of that one but by definition you do. By your post you appear bitter, hopefully this is not your normal fair. All your arguments appear on this thread to be thinly veneered insults... or outright insults. I would truly like to see you post an intelligent comment that actually would add to rather than deflect away from the topic at hand.

*hijack*
:headbang:
*hijack*
:headbang:
*hijack*
:headbang:
Stop this religion debate. It is annoying and increasingly irrelevant.

Atheism as Religion requires a certain amount of faith. An Atheist can not catergorically prove that there is no God and vice versa.

You protest as if faith is a sign of weakness yet you practice it everyday. You can try and wriggle out of that one but by definition you do.

Not having faith != having faith. Really, not having a religion and not believing in something is not having a religion and believing in something. Atheism is the lack of faith. Just like you probably lack faith in pixies (if you don't, well, you've got some problems), I lack faith in your deity.

So, please, spare me your flawed definition of atheism and your self-defined projection of it.

By your post you appear bitter, hopefully this is not your normal fair.

Ad hominems will get you no where.

All your arguments appear on this thread to be thinly veneered insults... or outright insults. I would truly like to see you post an intelligent comment that actually would add to rather than deflect away from the topic at hand.

If you are insulted by your own faith, then that's your problem.

The Cat-Tribe is right, though. This inadvertent hijack ends here.

Back to topic. I am anxiously awaiting the nomination hearings. Reading some of his opinions gives rise to questions I would like to hear answered. Sometimes I feel I may, through my own prejudices and at times through my own ignorance, be reading between the lines and coming to false conclusions. I believe seeing him before the Senate will help clear up the matter for me. I am officially ready to pop the popcorn and be in front of the television/computer for the long haul. :)

Hatch weighs in on issue, compares Roberts to Jesus:
"I think senators can ask any questions they want. I've said, no matter how dumb the question may be. But the, the nominee doesn't have to answer them and he should not, under the canons of judicial ethics, he should not answer questions on any issue that possibly would come before the Supreme Court. Otherwise, he would be foretelling how he would vote on those issues and then they would hold that against him. So it's a little bit like Biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ, you know, it goes on the same way. If they can catch him in something, they can then criticize -- and the outside groups will go berserk. And that's that what drives the People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. They're against any Republican. We knew that just no matter who it was -- it could be the greatest person in the world, and Roberts is, is that -- they would come out against him."

so, Roberts is the greatest person in the world? Has this guy met everyone in the world? Seems to me his statements are as much a partisan attack as those he condems.

Besides, Cat-Tribe has brought up some good points. Stuff to think on and reaserch.

Can anyone link me to a site where I can read some of his opinions on cases as a DC court of appeals judge? Or must you be in the legal profession to have acess to those?


Also, never trust a man with 2 first names. Just as a general rule :)

so, Roberts is the greatest person in the world? Has this guy met everyone in the world? Seems to me his statements are as much a partisan attack as those he condems.

Besides, Cat-Tribe has brought up some good points. Stuff to think on and reaserch.

Can anyone link me to a site where I can read some of his opinions on cases as a DC court of appeals judge? Or must you be in the legal profession to have acess to those?


Also, never trust a man with 2 first names. Just as a general rule :)
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/bin/opinions/allopinions.asp

That?

You have to look around for ones that he concurred with/wrote.

thanks, it is much apreciated

thanks, it is much apreciated

You may find this helpful in identifying cases at which to look.

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/selected_opinio.html

Well all you nay-sayers have been put out of business. You have been proven to be wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush;_ylt=AmohBhcVe733bckuG_8bSyis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gained ground Thursday in his drive for Senate confirmation. He was rated a "non-activist judge, which everyone is looking for," by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was praised by several centrist Democrats.

--

He's going to get confirmed whether you like it or not. Fortunately the Ted Kennedy idiots are only a minority of the democratic party.

You may find this helpful in identifying cases at which to look.

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/07/selected_opinio.html
Thanks, I lost my link to SCOTUS blog :D


Looks like they've got a few issues coming up on the docket that Roberts could swing...

Oh, and robert's joined the majority here:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf

Take a look at that, if it isn't on the supreme court nomination blog's shortlist, even though he can't rule on the appeal of it (obvious reasons).

Well all you nay-sayers have been put out of business. You have been proven to be wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush;_ylt=AmohBhcVe733bckuG_8bSyis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gained ground Thursday in his drive for Senate confirmation. He was rated a "non-activist judge, which everyone is looking for," by the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was praised by several centrist Democrats.

--

He's going to get confirmed whether you like it or not. Fortunately the Ted Kennedy idiots are only a minority of the democratic party.

ROTFLASTC

1. Who are these so-called naysayers? So far no one has predicted Roberts won't be confirmed. :rolleyes:

2. Orin Hatch has endorse Roberts (big surprise!) so that is the end of them matter? :eek: :D

Thanks for the amusement.

ROTFLASTC

1. Who are these so-called naysayers? So far no one has predicted Roberts won't be confirmed. :rolleyes:

2. Orin Hatch has endorse Roberts (big surprise!) so that is the end of them matter? :eek: :D

Thanks for the amusement.

Pretty worthless dribble for that matter.....

I'm talking about the naysayers who think Roberts is conservative.. those nay sayers on this forum.

Pretty worthless dribble for that matter.....

I'm talking about the naysayers who think Roberts is conservative.. those nay sayers on this forum.

Roberts is a conservative.

I can't believe you would dispute that. See the OP.

Apparently practically everyone including close friends and associates of Roberts are "nay sayers." :rolleyes:

Roberts is a conservative.

I can't believe you would dispute that. See the OP.

Apparently practically everyone including close friends and associates of Roberts are "nay sayers." :rolleyes:

Again worthless dribble.. OP? Hahahah.. opinionated partisanship... that's what it should stand for.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's the opposite. So your comment is nonsensical.

This is completely wrong, as to be an athiest, you must have faith in the idea that there wasn't some sort of Creator-being. Agnostic is the only real category that at times has nothing to do with faith, depending on the type of agnostic one is.

Despite my political beliefs I would think Roberts is a stand-up man who worked his ass off to get where he is today, and deserves to be where he is today. Is he a good replacement for O'connor? That remains to be seen. I like him.

Pretty worthless dribble for that matter.....

I'm talking about the naysayers who think Roberts is conservative.. those nay sayers on this forum.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Roberts is conservative. So was O'Connor.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Roberts is conservative. So was O'Connor.

Maybe to you..

I'll also say both Roberts and O'Connor are moderates...

Maybe to you..

I'll also say both Roberts and O'Connor are moderates...
Despite siding with the conservative block (scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist
) a majority of the time? That suggests a moderate conservative.

um, he himself says he is conservative, his close friends and associates say he is conservative, pretty much everyone who knows him, which I assume you don't.

You can't just give your opinion with no backing arguments, call it fact, and throw a name-calling hissy fit when people disagree with you. That's not how it works.

Maybe to you..

I'll also say both Roberts and O'Connor are moderates...

Which, of course, means they can't be Conservatives?

Roberts is a Republican, is he not?

So, faced with the choice of the American political spectrum, he chose the slightly more conservative party to join, over the slightly more liberal?

Some might argue that THAT identifies his politics as Conservative, you know.

**laughs** A good stealth canidate. They know how to pick em. Read his life story and you still don't know what he's gonna say about hot issues when he's on the bench.

I can only suggest that he be vetted thoroughly and then voted in. Because unless the vetting process turns up something unexpected, I would suggest he's a worthy addition despite his lack of experience. Fighting his acceptance would be a costly waste of time.

This nomination to me reflects the Bush administration to a T. Say whatever you will about their policies, they are still the best politicians on the block. Regardless of how effective they may be, the Bush administration can usually push through their policies through deft political rangling.

Maybe to you..

I'll also say both Roberts and O'Connor are moderates...

You can say they are both Martians. Doesn't make it so.

well, I'd love to stay and finish this little discussion, but I'm of for 18 days.

See you all the 10th of August (when I return)