It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush Has Nominated Anti Roe Extremist John G. Roberts to SCOTUS

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 07:58 PM
Against the grain of America as usual, the 50 year old now nominated for lifetime appointment is on the record against Roe V. Wade (a ruling most Americans do not wish overturned).

(Buffalo, NY - AP) — A Buffalo native who sits on the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC is on the short list of nominees to the Supreme Court.

Fifty-year-old John G. Roberts, Junior has been widely cited for his strong anti-abortion views.

The conservative was a lawyer for the Reagan administration and also served as clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Roberts has been widely quoted for a brief he wrote while working for the Reagan administration saying that Roe versus Wade was quote, "wrongly decided and should be overturned".

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Full background at Independent Judiciary.

Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

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.

He's been rejected as too extreme before.

John Roberts, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Educated at Harvard. Roberts would be a hard sell. He was rejected by the Judiciary Committee under Bush I as being too extreme. He was recently appointed by George W. Bush to the DC Appeals Circuit. John Roberts had been a prominent lawyer working for the Republican Party and the Bush & Reagan Administrations.

Have a nice day.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by RANT]

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:14 PM
Has been posted already....

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Boatphone
Has been posted already....

Yes but RANT actually did some work

Let the fun and games commence!

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:27 PM
Sok. Talk in the other one. I'll merge these or repost research.

Nah, just change and move this to PTS.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by RANT]

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:59 PM
I did cartwheels. It's like I just woke up an Christmas morning and found the GI JOE Aircraft Carrier under the tree.

I have to tell everyone, in no uncertain terms, how much I absolutely LOVE this SCOTUS pick. I'm salivating at the thought of those confirmaton hearings. He didn't pick a woman. He didnt pick a hispanic. He didn't pick a moderate. Not only did he NOT gain key votes in these groups, he lost'em.

In one swoop, Bush just lost Women voters. He just lost moderate Republican senators who have to run for reelection in 06. Jesus, he just lost some moderate Republicans!


Seriously. At a time when his poll numbers are dropping like a lead anchor, Bush should have shored up support from the moderate middle by nominating a rational thinking moderate judge.

But, what does he do?

He nominates somebody to appease the people who ALREADY agree with him! Hahaha, and I know the my GOP friends on this very board are as happy as I am, but for completely different reasons. They think this is ACTUALLY good for them.

And what's going to get played over and over again?

"Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned"

Bounding through the primordial echo chamber of the American psyche like a ticking clock. And while feelings are strong on both side of the issue, any clear thinking person can read poll numbers, and poll numbers say that 2/3rds of Americans, Democrat and Republican, don't want Roe overturned. 80% of women don't want Roe overturned!

I can only hope that Frist threatens the Nuclear Option. Because, there's nothing that would make this more of a PR DISASTER than for the GOP to be publically perceived as rewriting the constitution to cater to an extremist minority who want to change our way of life.

(And yes, I know that they're not rewriting the constitution. But, we're talking about John Q. Public here - he's not worried about semantics)

My public prediction: Bush's approval ratings dip into the high thirties, or rock bottom forties. Moderate senators from Pennsilvania, Iowa, Ohio, and other swings states defect, and George Bush is picking out a new SCOTUS nominee by September.

The pefect storm has been brewing, and I just smelled rain.

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 09:05 PM
There's a perfect storm brewing. Except none of us really know which angle the wind's coming from.

It's almost Nixonian, but worse.

His pick is pretty dumb. And pretty desperate to cling to power.

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:33 PM
Looks to me like this was timed perfectly to draw attention away from the Rove scandal.

Nothing like trying to tip the scales just a bit more adding another Neo-Con to the family
in case his whole administration ends up facing impeachment.

The reality is that Bush knows he's messed up bad, so nominating a young Neo-Con lifer
to the Supreme Court insures a long happy future for his puppet masters.

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 10:41 PM

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

Looks to me like this was timed perfectly to draw attention away from the Rove scandal

Actually, it simply compounds the growing resentment in the air, and further drives down his poll numbers and approval rating.

I don't believe in the neo-cabal of whatever and their mother. I believe in good old fashioned grid iron politics. And, for someone who seemed so naturally adept, and frankly nimble, during his first administration, it seems like Bush can't get a fork full of waffles into his mouth now without spilling them.

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:03 PM
Roberts is not an "extremist", unless one is to consider an originalist an extremist. That is to say, Roberts does not believe in legislating from the bench, which is, in light of the constitution, the extremist position.

If you are with the constitution, you'll have no problems with this man. If you prefer the USSC shove down the citizens' throats what cannot be passed through congree, then you might not like him.

Since most cases that go before the USSC deals in Equity law and not Constitutional law (remember, things changed greatly after the Civil Police Action of the 1860's), I wouldn't get my pink panties in a wad if I were anti-constitutionalist!

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 11:12 PM
I understand what you mean about Bush alienating even more people, but
this move will split the public and media attention away from Rove.

It's far more dangerous to his administration to have the madding crowds
focused on one issue that would force him to honor his word.

Now the majority of headlines will focus on Robert's worthiness allowing
them to sweep this pesky Rove issue under the table.

Robert's nomination is a long term PARTY nomination designed to weaken moderate
views in the courts.

Bush may stand to end his term in disgrace, but the party has still achieved their goal.

Personally, I'm disgusted with what these slithering maggots have done to our country, but we don't have the guts to throw these criminals out of office. It's truly pitiful how weak we've become.

If you honestly believe we are free, then imagine what would happen here
if we followed the Ukraine's example and several million protesters stormed the White House and shut down the government for
a few weeks.

WARNING: This image may be upsetting to Bush supporters

" The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."


[edit on 20-7-2005 by FallenFromTheTree]

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:20 AM
Moveon .org already has a petition rolling against the Robert's nomination.

I hope they keep the pressure on the Rove scandal as well.

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:38 AM
Yup, you want to put a halt to a judge who would not (reportedly, anyway) be an activist judge, would not be legislating from the bench, but I'll bet you'd wet on yourselves from pure joy if a judge who would've agreed with the recent judicial travesty in regard to Eminent Domain.

Yes, keep up the heat on Rove, a non-issue. There has yet to be any indication that Plame was knowingly dimed while undercover, and as she seems to be doing quite well in the limelight and parties, where is the injury? Considering Plame and her husband are quite the Democrats, I don't see any reason to smell a conspiratorial rat in the works, do you?

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 02:49 PM
All my republican pro-choice friends who voted for Bush thinking that Roe would never be overturned are having major wake up calls.

It's amusing yet frustrating to watch.

[edit on 7/20/2005 by Lecky]

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Lecky
All my republican pro-choice friends who voted for Bush thinking that Roe would never be overturned are having major wake up calls.

It's amusing yet frustrating to watch.

It almost is. And Brimstone's first analysis on this actually made my week. I just laugh when they talk about this fringe freak being a "moderate" on TV now.

But should those that wish to turn America into a copy of Saudi Arabia or some other authoritarian religious nanny state imposing homogenous morals (no matter what fancy "Constitutional" name they've pulled out of their butt to feel good about their evil) get their way, the nightly news will tell the story. Or when it's their own daughter butchered in an unsafe mexican abortion. Or jailed for 9 months because she tried to do one herself. Whatever. Social conservatives just live in their head. No concept of reality. I'm pro real life. Not fantasy land.

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 03:17 PM
My feeling is that no matter who was nominated, they will be strongly opposed for whatever reason can be found. They will be opposed because of who picked them, not who they are or what they have done.

I believe the Democrats are so upset that Bush gets the opportunity to pick a Supreme or two, that they will obstruct the process if they can for as long as they can. It's not about who he picks, it's about the fact that he gets to pick.

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
My feeling is that no matter who was nominated, they will be strongly opposed for whatever reason can be found. They will be opposed because of who picked them, not who they are or what they have done.

Actually, I think Bush has every right to pick a pro-lifer to be on the Supreme Court. Rehnquist will probably be leaving soon and maybe Bush will pick another RW extremist. Stevens is what? 87? Bush could just go crazy with SC nominations wee! I'm not going to go in hysterics I'm having too much fun watching my friends react.

Here is the catch, the majority of Americans are pro-choice! I think they have a good reason to be worried about who is making Supreme Court decisions.

Unfortunately it's going to have to come to people seeing their rights taken away before they wake up and realize what is happening.

[edit on 7/20/2005 by Lecky]

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:51 PM
I was really expecting to see a women on that seat, but as usual male dominated society will prevail.

Nothing against any of you male members you know.

Now as usual let the male dominated society to rule on women issues and women private parts.

They can not stay away from our private parts and will do anything to control them.

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
Now as usual let the male dominated society to rule on women issues and women private parts.

They can not stay away from our private parts and will do anything to control them.

Oh marg, it's not about control (heh)'s their obsessive compassion for the unborn which seems to end right at birth. (I don't get it either). To be fair, there are many pro-life women as well.

Pro-Life Logic:
Fetus > women
Stem Cells > the sick and suffering

Pro-Life Solution:
"Keep your legs shut sluts!"

They assume that abortion will end if eventually made illegal (the goal).

[edit on 7/20/2005 by Lecky]

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:48 PM
I heard one report on NPR today that Robert's wife is a pro-life activist.

One guest commentator also mentioned that he is Catholic.

I guess we're going back to the Holy Roller Empire.

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:59 PM
Funny lecky that you mention that the compassion for the unborn ends at child birth.

These people wants to preserve the rights of the "unborn" but the hypocrisy when it comes to support and provide for the already born children that live in poverty with mothers that are not fit to be mothers at all.

Where is the outcry for that?

You know lecky when you post about poverty and hunger that many children in the US are facing everyday the same members that advocate for the rights of the unborn will post against any government help for this families or the children.

The hypocrisy make me gag. You are right the compassion for the unborn ends with child birth.

Yes fallenfromthetree, I heard about the wife deeds in her campaigns.

I wonder how many unwanted born children she supports, but for the way her own child was behaving I guess she can not even control her own.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in