Bush nominates Roberts for Supreme Court

[jamaesi]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush will select U.S. Circuit Judge John Roberts Jr. to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the nation's highest court, CNN has learned.

Two sources, including a Senate Judiciary Committee source, said Roberts will be Bush's choice when the president makes a formal announcement in a nationwide address at 9 p.m. ET.

I'm disappointed. Even Mrs. Bush wanted him to select a woman. Instead we get more of the same, a white anti-abortion, anti-environment male.
:149:


Thoughts?

 

[Mister Emu]

Well according to aol news, he in fact did choose judge Roberts.

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Also this doesn't sound like he is out to make abortion illegal.

 

[jamaesi]

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991

Well, he better make up his mind on what he believes then. : P

 

[Pah]

Well, he better make up his mind on what he believes then. : P

The quote sure makes him fair game in committee - he can't, ala Thomas, say he has no opinion

 

[CaptainXeroid]

The quote sure makes him fair game in committee - he can't, ala Thomas, say he has no opinion

No, but he did say this: '...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 also told senators Roe was "the settled law of the land" and said "there's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."...'

I guess how people view this nomination with regards to Roe v. Wade depends on which of his statements is consistant with what they already know to be true.

I wish Bush had not nominated someone with such close working ties to his and his father's administrations since that will give opponents ammunition to oppose him, but I cannot say I am surprised.

 

[Faminedynasty]

I know very little about the man, but I couldn't help but notice that his kid was throwing a tissy-fit and acting like the stewart kid character from mad TV durring the conference. So that's a strike against him. It seems that though I'm largely a leftist, I suppose I am a reactionary in the sense that I support a return to the era in which parents raised their children to behave. That's my two cents. Half a cent perhaps.

 

[Original Freak]

*sigh*...turns around and goes back to Canada.

 

[Jaymes]

Take me with you, Original Freak.

 

[Aqualung]

Instead we get more of the same, a white anti-abortion, anti-environment male.

There is nothing wrong with being a white male. People need to stop demonising them. They aren't the devil's children. There's nothing wrong with anti-abortion. One shouldn't be ethically base enough to elect a pro-abortion judge to what has (unfortunatly) become the most powerful branch in the most powerful branch of the government and I'm glad that Bush will follow his morals when he makes desicions in his office. There is nothing wrong with recognising that the earth has always gone, and always will go, through environmental phases, with global warming and global cooling constanlty cycling.

 

[Faminedynasty]

There is nothing wrong with being a white male. People need to stop demonising them. They aren't the devil's children.

As a white male, I tend to agree. But there is something wrong with a society of both sexes and countless races being represented by an exclusively white, exclusively male government.
The only other issues I take with your statement are these: The supreme court is not the most powerful branch of government. And the devastation that the Bush administration has inflicted upon the global environment is not simply part of the natural progression.

 

[Aqualung]

As a white male, I tend to agree. But there is something wrong with a society of both sexes and countless races being represented by an exclusively white, exclusively male government.
The only other issues I take with your statement are these: The supreme court is not the most powerful branch of government. And the devastation that the Bush administration has inflicted upon the global environment is not simply part of the natural progression.

A person in my English class gave a pretty good speech towards the end of the year. I don't remember all the exact numbers and years and what not, but let me tell you one of the things she brought up. Of all the women who ran for a place on the senate last time 100% (that number I remember) were elected. ALL were elected. How many ran? something like 3. Women aren't being repressed, and choosing a white male just reflects the make-up of judges, if not the population as a whole

I think the supreme court is the most powerful. It pretty much has free reign to overturn anything the other branches do. They can cause people much fear by thier "judicial review." They have changed a lot of things that used to be great about this country.

Yeah, Bush is certainly not the most environment friedly guy. And I do my share of recycling, so I know that we can do our part to help out the environment. I'm just saying that not everything that happens is cause by the United States, by Bush, or even by humans.

 

[BUDDY]

I'm disappointed. Even Mrs. Bush wanted him to select a woman. Instead we get more of the same, a white anti-abortion, anti-environment male.

I'm impressed with the selection. I think that he could have chosen someone that is even more conservative and less main stream. The women he was looking at were very, very conservative. The man he chose has been supported by both republicans and democrats adn is a man of honor with an unblemished record. If you don't like him because of his politics fine, but it is apparent to me that no liberal would have agreed with the choice, no matter who it was. He will be confirmed, and the only people I see voting against him would be Kennedy, Schumer, and the dis-honorable democratic former KKK grand wizard senator from West Virginia, Byrd.

 

[Melody]

I know very little about the man, but I couldn't help but notice that his kid was throwing a tissy-fit and acting like the stewart kid character from mad TV durring the conference. So that's a strike against him.

I thought the same thing, although to be fair, the child looked to be around 5 or 6? I was fortunate that my children by the age of 3 would have behaved better but I don't know whether that's due to their character or my parenting

I don't know too much about him but it's my understanding that he's somewhat of a moderate...going neither too far left or right. I don't put much stock in the anti-abortion comments since (a) the quote was taken from 1991 and (b) Roe vs Wade is just not ever going to be overturned as much as some of us would like.

 

[BUDDY]

I might be way off here, but I believe that his child is autistic. I heard that on a local radio station.

 

[jamaesi]

There is nothing wrong with white men, but as a mixed female, I'd like to see some diversity on the courts and in government. : P I also have a problem with people who will never get pregnant making laws about abortion.

There is nothing wrong with recognising that the earth has always gone, and always will go, through environmental phases, with global warming and global cooling constanlty cycling.There is nothing wrong with recognising that the earth has always gone, and always will go, through environmental phases, with global warming and global cooling constanlty cycling.

And it's getting more and more obvious that while we should be going into another cooling phase we're just getting warmer.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

I'm impressed with the selection. I think that he could have chosen someone that is even more conservative and less main stream. The women he was looking at were very, very conservative. The man he chose has been supported by both republicans and democrats adn is a man of honor with an unblemished record. If you don't like him because of his politics fine, but it is apparent to me that no liberal would have agreed with the choice, no matter who it was. He will be confirmed, and the only people I see voting against him would be Kennedy, Schumer, and the dis-honorable democratic former KKK grand wizard senator from West Virginia, Byrd.

I agree. I thought it was an excellent choice. I think he will be confirmed without too much of a fight; but, we don't really know anything about him yet. Only time will tell.

 

[johnnys4life]

I don't know too much about him but it's my understanding that he's somewhat of a moderate...going neither too far left or right. I don't put much stock in the anti-abortion comments since (a) the quote was taken from 1991 and (b) Roe vs Wade is just not ever going to be overturned as much as some of us would like.

I would settle for them outlawing it in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. There is just no excuse for that to be a "choice".

 

[DreamQuickBook]

I would settle for them outlawing it in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. There is just no excuse for that to be a "choice".

Killing your unborn children is a terrible, maybe even "evil" thing. But abortion is not the real problem. In fact, abortion is a solution to the real problem, which is as broad as it is complicated. You cannot simply remove abortion and think that the problem is solved; that will just create more problems.

The real problem is the destruction of the family. Until the institution of family is strengthened, all kinds of "immoral" or "evil" acts will occur.

 

[johnnys4life]

Wanting murder to be illegal is always a good goal. The family unit may be dying, but people still fear prison.

 

[Faminedynasty]

Traditional families are not inherently moral, and the many familes which are not are not going to save society, and in fact nuclear families can be destructive. The necessary step to making the world a better place is raising more ethical individuals, whether they are raised by a standard nuclear family or by a homosexual couple, by a single mother, foster parents or whathaveyou. I'm not questioning the solid structure of the mother/father/children structured family, or its ability to raise good children, but I assure you that a child raised morally by two homosexuals who show that child love will turn out better than a child raised without morality and without love by a traditional nuclear family.