NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course we have plenty of Roberts topics, but now we shall have my opinion on this matter. John Roberts appears like a nice guy and ok onthe surface; however, being a good guy does not qualify him for being on the US Supreme Court. His judical record is rather short, but between that and his actions as solicitor general shine the light on him. He appears to be a sneak attack by the bush administration: he looks like a moderate or moderate conservative on the surface, but with the light on him he follows more so the hard line of Scalia and Thomas. He has repeatedly and aggressively attacked the Roe v Wade decision, opposed government economic conservation acts, has dabbled in opposition to the seperation of church and state and to affirmative action and property rights, not to mention other unfriendly decisions

As a member of the DC Appeals Court, he of course would recognize decisions like Roe v Wade as precedent as he stated in his 2003 interview for the position, but that is on the appeals court - he had no position or power to overturn. Now that he is on the USSC he, along with Thomas and Scalia and probably Rehnquist and the other conservative I don't recall the name of, could work to turn this nation into what it is already dangerously tottering toward: a extremist conservative near-theocratic mockery of a democratic republic. Extreme on either side of the political line is bad, but now the extreme conservatives shall more than likely control all 3 branches (and both houses) of the US government. There will be no balances or counterbalances between the houses as each just reaffirms the decisions of the other and there will be no recourse if conservatives like Scalia or Thomas control the highest court in the land. By the looks of his history, Roberts could serve to aid this horrible situation


http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
http://politics.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau/20050720/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_scotus_nominee_wa
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/171/story_17129_1.html

Well, Mr. Democratic Hardliner, a correction:
Ihatevacations']a extremist conservative near-theocratic mockery of democracy
The United States of America is not, and never has been, a democracy. It is a representative federal republic, no matter what the politicians think is cool to say.

Well, Mr. Democratic Hardliner, a correction:

The United States of America is not, and never has been, a democracy. It is a representative federal republic, no matter what the politicians think is cool to say.
does mockery of a democratic republic make your irrelevant postings self feel better?

Democrats even think he's a good choice....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050721/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush_40

"In other words, he's sent us somebody that's got impressive academic and legal credentials and seems to have a record of personal honor," Lieberman said on the Don Imus radio show, suggesting a smooth confirmation for the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge.

He's no extreme conservative...

Don't make me hose you two down!! :eek: ;) :D

Ihatevacations']does mockery of a democratic republic make your irrelevant postings self feel better?

Just doing my part to ensure the Founding Fathers’ original intent is remembered. They repentantly made sure people realized that they were not creating a democracy. I dare you to find that word in the constitution.

Democrats even think he's a good choice....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050721/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush_40

"In other words, he's sent us somebody that's got impressive academic and legal credentials and seems to have a record of personal honor," Lieberman said on the Don Imus radio show, suggesting a smooth confirmation for the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge.

He's no extreme conservative...

Meh.

Yep. This is why his prior three nominations sailed through. :rolleyes:

Democrats even think he's a good choice....

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050721/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush_40

"In other words, he's sent us somebody that's got impressive academic and legal credentials and seems to have a record of personal honor," Lieberman said on the Don Imus radio show, suggesting a smooth confirmation for the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge.

Ah, but I think the important thing we should all be asking ourselves is, what does Howard Dean think?

If I wasn't such pacifist, I'd assasinate him.

If I wasn't such pacifist, I'd assasinate him.

Letila, you’d assassinate you own mother if she wasn’t anarcho-communist enough. :p

Perhaps it is a little early to be making predictions and expecting everyone to pick sides.

It's been less than 48 hours.

Think Douglas Ginsburg.

Just doing my part to ensure the Founding Fathers’ original intent is remembered. They repentantly made sure people realized that they were not creating a democracy. I dare you to find that word in the constitution.
your attack on how my statement was formed is entirely irrelevant to the thread, go troll elsewhere - I really don't want to have to report you for it

As a member of the DC Appeals Court, he of course would recognize decisions like Roe v Wade as precedent as he stated in his 2003 interview for the position, but that is on the appeals court - he had no position or power to overturn. Now that he is on the USSC he, along with Thomas and Scalia and probably Rehnquist and the other conservative I don't recall the name of, could work to turn this nation into what it is already dangerously tottering toward: a extremist conservative near-theocratic mockery of democracy. Extreme on either side of the political line is bad, but now the extreme conservatives shall more than likely control all 3 branches (and both houses) of the US government. There will be no balances or counterbalances between the houses as each just reaffirms the decisions of the other and there will be no recourse if conservatives like Scalia or Thomas control the highest court in the land. By the looks of his history, Roberts could serve to aid this horrible situation.
If the Republicans nominated Mahattma Ghandi for SCOTUS, you would find some reason to oppose him. If the Democrats nominated Adolph Hitler, you would support him. You are very predictable in your ideological fervor.

Ihatevacations']your attack on how my statement was formed is entirely irrelevant to the thread, go troll elsewhere - I really don't want to have to report you for it

I wasn’t attacking your point. Don’t take everything so seriously, or so personally. I always correct people when they call the US a democracy. You made a few valid points. Politicians can be quite dubious, and I am very wary about trusting any of them. Think of Mr. Democratic Hardliner as a nickname, not an insult. :p

Ihatevacations']your attack on how my statement was formed is entirely irrelevant to the thread, go troll elsewhere - I really don't want to have to report you for it
So anyone who questions anything you say is trolling? Interesting take on debate. Sigh. :(

If the Republicans nominated Mahattma Ghandi for SCOTUS, you would find some reason to oppose him. If the Democrats nominated Adolph Hitler, you would support him. You are very predictable in your ideological fervor.
In the name of Jesus the Christ, I call upon ye trolls and hipocrates to be gone, you are not wanted here.

http://www.silver-jewellery-box.co.uk/silver-jewellery/images/default/a_medium_images/sp358a.jpg

I gave my reasons for my position and backed it up with facts that were derived from 3, count them, three sources instead of, oh, making a short paragraph "commentary" and posting a huge biased article from some extremist site that pointed out the viewpoint I was going for.

So anyone who questions anything you say is trolling? Interesting take on debate. Sigh.
No, however, insulting me and attacking me based on an offhand statement I made that was worded wrong and had, in no way, anything to do with the topic at hand is trolling

People get over it... this guy isn't a conservative.. I know some of you were just itching to attack Bush over his nomination but really there is nothing you can attack here. This guy is moderate and has substantial judicial knowledge. He's an excellent choice.

But hey maybe you are right.. he's probably conservative compared to some of you.. since you are so far off to the left.

@[NS]Ihatevacations, Okay, this is in all seriousness. No joking. You are one of the most intolerable posters on this forum. You blindly follow an idiotic ideology that is ill-defined, and based on whatever is politically expedient for its masters. You have no tolerance for other views, and label them as trolling instead of posting a reply. Your view of the world is extremely narrow, and the constant references to your “education” are disgusting.

Edit: Oh nevermind.. fast edit. ;)

Okay, this is in all seriousness. No joking. You are one of the most intolerable posters on this forum. You blindly follow an idiotic ideology that is ill-defined, and based on whatever is politically expedient for its masters. You have no tolerance for other views, and label them as trolling instead of posting a reply. Your view of the world is extremely narrow, and the constant references to your “education” are disgusting.
I have NOT accused any one of trolling who has commented on my view, which is so far a total of two people, you on the other hand went straight to ignoring the point and jsut correcting my while simultaneously insulting me. And you are one to topic about followng idiotic ideaologies. In MY topic I have focused on more than Roe v Wade, provided a few (more than one at least) sources for what I have said, and explained my reasoning. Piss off

I'm not sure that someone who is only 50 years old can be considered fully qualified for the supreme court. Is it really plausible that the best legal scholar in the country its 20 years younger than the other 8?

I'm not sure that someone who is only 50 years old can be considered fully qualified for the supreme court. Is it really plausible that the best legal scholar in the country its 20 years younger than the other 8?

He is definitely qualified as he has the educational background. There is nothing wrong with nominating someone younger and more energetic. I'm not saying he's the best legal scholar in the country.. but he's a pretty damn good choice.

Ihatevacations']I have NOT accused any one of trolling who has commented on my view, which is so far a total of two people, you on the other hand went straight to ignoring the point and jsut correcting my while simultaneously insulting me.
You know, you could have just taken it as a joke, and thanked me for correcting you, like most people do, but you obviously can’t handle that.
And you are one to topic about followng idiotic ideaologies.
You’ve have still failed to inform me of my idiotic ideology that you accuse me of holding. If I described it to you, I wonder if you even could.
In MY topic I have focused on more than Roe v Wade, provided a few (more than one at least) sources for what I have said, and explained my reasoning. Piss off
You need to accept, that on this forum, threads are going to stray off topic, and that it immediately becomes no longer yours after the first reply.

You know, you could have just taken it as a joke, and thanked me for correcting you, like most people do, but you obviously can’t handle that.
And you could've said it without your own personal commentary


You’ve have still failed to inform me of my idiotic ideology that you accuse me of holding. If I described it to you, I wonder if you even could.
If you don't know what I'm talking about how should I prove it? I could ponit out your adherence to republican party line, but to what avail?

Ihatevacations']I gave my reasons for my position and backed it up with facts that were derived from 3, count them, three sources instead of, oh, making a short paragraph "commentary" and posting a huge biased article from some extremist site that pointed out the viewpoint I was going for.
Oh. So the New York Times publishes "huge biased article[s]" and is "an extremist site." Right. :rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']I could ponit out your adherence to republican party line, but to what avail?
Oh. You mean kinda like your knee-jerk liberlism regardless of the facts, reasoning, logic or anything else? Kinda like that? :)

I'm not sure that someone who is only 50 years old can be considered fully qualified for the supreme court. Is it really plausible that the best legal scholar in the country its 20 years younger than the other 8?


There are two other Justices who are 20 (Souter is 19 (close enough), Thomas is 28) years younger than the eldest Justice, J.P. Stevens. Are you an agist?

Oh. You mean kinda like your knee-jerk liberlism regardless of the facts, reasoning, logic or anything else? Kinda like that? :)
Again take your hypocrisy elsewhere captain spam-alot-of-partisan-bullshit-topics


Did you miss the THREE links I provided for factual back up and the TWO relatively LONG paragraphs explaining my application of facts and reasoning?

If the Republicans nominated Mahattma Ghandi for SCOTUS, you would find some reason to oppose him. If the Democrats nominated Adolph Hitler, you would support him. You are very predictable in your ideological fervor.

Nice ad hominem.

Have anything of substance to say regarding the OP's substance?

At the risk of starting yet another thread on abortion, I've got to ask a question. Why does the world revolve around whether or not the Supreme Court regards abortion as protected by the Constitution? This whole thing seems to be blown out of proportion, to the point where rational people can no longer discuss the topic.

Sorry.

At the risk of starting yet another thread on abortion, I've got to ask a question. Why does the world revolve around whether or not the Supreme Court regards abortion as protected by the Constitution? This whole thing seems to be blown out of proportion, to the point where rational people can no longer discuss the topic.

Sorry.
jesus christ, how many people even read the topic or just ignored it and posted, well besides Undelia who read it then started ignoring it

Ihatevacations']And you could've said it without your own personal commentary


If you don't know what I'm talking about how should I prove it? I could ponit out your adherence to republican party line, but to what avail?
My adherence to Republican ideology. Hmm. There are few others on this forum who would agree with you there. I may have been at that point once, but not anymore.

Here, you tell me what you think I am, just to test your much vaunted “education.”

From a thread a while ago, slightly edited:
Abortion: Pro-choice but believe abortion is wrong
Affirmative Action: Against
Arms Trade: For
Death Penalty: Only for treason, killing without a sane motive, and child molestation
Drugs: Only hard-drugs illegal, DWI violations heavily enforced
Economic System: Capitalist, no income taxes (unless there are no property taxes), no sales taxes no tarrifs, yes to anti- trust laws and maybe to minimum wage
Education: compulsory until 18, mostly private, charities and states may operate free schools
Electoral College in USA Elections: For
Environmentalism: Some basic laws to protect the environment , but should not be afraid to utilize when necessary.
Euthanasia: Active: never, passive: only with written consent
Evolution or Creation?: Creation
FCC: Industry should self regulate
Gay Marriage: Morally oppose, but it should be legal
Gun Control: against
Immigration Policies: strict boarder security, let those willing to work and learn English in, keep criminals and possible terrorists out
Income Tax: None, if necessary, not above ten percent
Israel/Palestine: I don't care. Let them sort it out.
Philosophy: Personally pious but allows others to live the way they want, don’t know a name for that.
Political Party Affiliation: you figure it out
President Bush/American Policies: A corporatist authoritarian with no political balls
Prostitution: Illegal, possibly legal with proper regulation
Religion: Southern Baptist
Social Security: Unnecessary, unreliable system which ultimately hurts people’s retirement
The UN: Good as a forum for foreign representatives to come together, bad to actually enforce edicts
Veganism/Vegetarianism: Vegetarian, I do eat dairy and eggs.
War in Iraq: a waste of money
War on Terror: should concentrate on keeping them out of the US

great.anyway, bump because I have actually brought up things besides his position on roe v wade

You don’t know, do you?