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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
[edit on 7/20/2005 by Lecky]




posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   


[edit on 21-7-2005 by FallenFromTheTree]



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   
He, he, I wonder about this guy and his first day, but not with Bush, but his wife.

A 50 year old with young kids. . . grandpa having babies? is there a first wife in the picture?



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
The more I learn about Roberts, the more I like him. There where much better picks out there, ie. Ashcroft, Roy Moore etc., but Roberts definately will be better than Sandra Day O'Conner.

I give Rehnquist another 6 months to a year, then Bush will have another appointment to make.

Just like slavery, Roe v Wade is bad law and it is just a matter of time before it is overruled.

Roe v Wade is bad law simply because it fails to protect legitimate fathers. It takes 2 to make a baby and it should be the choice of the 2 individuals, not just 1.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
It's all about OUR freedom to make personal choices.

These criminals don't care about freedom or personal choices, but they will lie through their teeth
to get your campaign contributions.

This is not about one issue, but many issues affecting our lives.

Stem cell research is very important to someone like me with irreversable nerve damage.

If these people were really so pro-life, they wouldn't be funding billions to make more effective
weapons.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Orignially quoted by: Thomas Crown

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.


Here's an article detailing the man's stance on issues:

(btw, for the record, I belive the announcement for Supreme was an attempt to get Karl Rove's little dilemma off the front pages of newspapers. I think they failed in their effort.)



The John Roberts Dossier
By Katharine Mieszkowski
Salon.com

Wednesday 20 July 2005

Everything you need to know about Bush's nominee, before the battle begins.
Who is he?

John G. Roberts, 50, now serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where he's been since 2003. It took him three nominations and more than a decade to get there. He was originally nominated for the court in 1992 by the first President Bush, and again by George W. Bush in 2001; both nominations died in the Senate. Roberts was renominated in January 2003 by President Bush and joined the court in May of that year.

His two-year stint on the D.C. court offers a short record of decisions to scrutinize. But in his career as a litigator, Roberts argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court, both as a lawyer in private practice and as one working for the government under Republican administrations. He won 25 of them.

Roberts was a member of "Lawyers for Bush-Cheney" and contributed $1,000 to the first Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000. His professional ties to the Bush family go back a generation; he served under Kenneth Starr as the principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration. He also campaigned for that administration's election, as a member of the executive committee of the DC Lawyers for Bush-Quayle '88. Before that, he was the deputy White House counsel for four years in the Reagan administration.

www.truthout.org...




[edit on 7/22/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
What is worst to have a time bomb ready to explote in the supreme court or to have somebody that you pretty much know what it stands for.

Obviously he is one of long time Bushes man and he will do as Bushes man will do.

Yes I agree that he was a divertion from the passing of the patriot act 2 and the rovegate.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by: Carseller
Roberts definately will be better than Sandra Day O'Conner.


Better because.. you don't like Sandra Day O'Connor's rulings? Sorry, but that doesn't make someone better or worse.

Sandra Day O'Connor judged each case individually, not ideologically.

And she was nobody's "yes-man." (Unlike Mr. Roberts.) His nickname should be Corporate boy.


Just like slavery, Roe v Wade is bad law


That's nothing more than rhetoric you picked up. Please explain to us why Roe v. Wade is BAD law.


Roe v Wade is bad law simply because it fails to protect legitimate fathers. It takes 2 to make a baby and it should be the choice of the 2 individuals, not just 1.


This is NOT an answer. It is nothing more than an empty opinion, based on no facts. Give us 3 good reasons to believe Roe v. Wade is BAD law.

And btw, I'm sure a flood of women out there would pelt you with rocks and garbage.. b/c their men wanted to pay for abortions instead of assuming their responsibility as a father.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
It's sad this is the best Bush could've come up with. 'Course Roberts will definitely have Dubya's back.

Here are a few good reasons I do not support this nomination for Supreme Court justice:



Analysis

Statement from the International Action Center on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court

Download a .pdf file for printing.
Adobe Acrobat Reader required.
Click here to download a free copy.

July 19, 2005

Tonight, George W. Bush has signaled his intention to continue his all-out assault on women, working people, lesbian/gay/bi/trans communities, civil liberties and civil rights. It is vital that we examine the nomination of John G. Roberts, and ask how such a reactionary appointment could be made and, more importantly, how we can push back the Bush attack and what social and political forces can be mobilized in the struggle

Judge John G. Roberts has built his career advancing the far-right agendas of the Reagan and Bush Administrations. He has worked to overturn abortion rights, blur the separation between church and state, undermine affirmative action, and advance a narrow right-wing interpretation of the Constitution.
www.onlinejournal.com...



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Awww, I was hoping for the republican who told women they are evil because they bleed once a month and if they wanted to be good they needed to pray because PMS was their fault, not gods.

Oh well, what's next? Re-Writting the 1st amendment?
"You can have free speech as long as you worship Bush. If you say anything bad about a republican/GOP orginaization like Fox News and Big Oil you are to be executed on sight. Now lets go bomb some more brown people."



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Question:

How can Roberts be an "anti-Roe extremist" when he supports embryonic stem cell research?
(I have no problem with ADULT stem cell research--people shouldn't lump the two together.)

Besides which, you don't need a Republican (or other party) majority to overturn Roe. Roe is an unconstitutional ruling (in violation of the Fifth and Tenth Amendments) and it's actually null and void to begin with.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   

as posted by EastCoastKid
Give us 3 good reasons to believe Roe v. Wade is BAD law.

Here are 10 legal reasons, ECK.
Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

How about here?


WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision Roe v. Wade was accurately described by Justice Byron White as an exercise of "raw judicial power"; and

WHEREAS, various legal scholars have described Roe v. Wade as "bad constitutional law" [Harvard Constitutional Law Professor John Hart Ely], as premised on "multiple and profound misapprehensions of law and history" [Fordham University Law Professor Robert Byrn], and "unquestionably [among] the most erroneous decisions in the history of constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court" [University of Texas Law Professor Joseph Witherspoon]; and

WHEREAS, courts relying on the reasoning in and precedent set by Roe v. Wade have begun to issue legal decisions that threaten human life in the areas of assisted suicide and euthanasia; and

WHEREAS, the lives of more than 40+/- million children have been terminated as a result of Roe v. Wade, and the lives of millions more are threatened in the future,

Resolution

More could and can be found, ECK.
Surprising that Jane Roe is seeking to have Roe Vs Wade overturned, huh?

Amazingly, you insist that terrorists and insurgents have a right to life, but not 40 million children already axed because of this court decision, not counting the millions more to come. The same many anti-war activists that denounce the war in Iraq, or elsewhere, are the same ones advocating abortion. Interesting on both counts, no?




It's sad this is the best Bush could've come up with.

Any which way that you, and others, wish to look at this, the decision is sound, as will be his ratification into the position Bush is seeking to place him in.
What really is sad is that you, as with others, only consider him such a bad choice only because Bush appointed him and because he was not appointed by a Democrat president.....







seekerof

[edit on 12-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Seekerof--

Great find!


As Michael Peroutka said in the third-party debates last fall, no woman has the fundamental right to kill her child.

Ohio has Choose Life license plates now, and I have a set on my van.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst


As Michael Peroutka said in the third-party debates last fall, no woman has the fundamental right to kill her child.


Thankfully, that's not what Roe v Wade was about anyway.

It simply decided that it was unconstitutional to have laws preventing abortion. It was about privacy, not killing; rather, whether the woman in question had an inherent right to privacy or not.

And you know what? If Roe v Wade is overturned because of the legal ambiguity, and then revisited, it'd be fine.

What is absolutely not fine, is overturning this (or any other decision) based upon the religious beliefs of one or any member of SCOTUS, or indeed, the beliefs of anyone involved in this debate.

Religion just has no place, whatsoever, in the Supreme Court.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Amethyst


As Michael Peroutka said in the third-party debates last fall, no woman has the fundamental right to kill her child.


Thankfully, that's not what Roe v Wade was about anyway.

It simply decided that it was unconstitutional to have laws preventing abortion. It was about privacy, not killing; rather, whether the woman in question had an inherent right to privacy or not.


Sorry, wrong answer. Abortion kills children--what more is there to understand? Are you saying I should be able to kill my 3-year-old in the "privacy" of my own home? Killing is not a private matter.



What is absolutely not fine, is overturning this (or any other decision) based upon the religious beliefs of one or any member of SCOTUS, or indeed, the beliefs of anyone involved in this debate.


Everyone has the inherent right to life--including the unborn. There are even pro-life atheists. Not all pro-lifers are Christian...and believe it or not not all professing Christians are pro-life (though I find that an odd combination).

Stealing is prohibited by Scripture, yet you're not screaming about laws against theft.

It's not about religion, it's about what's right and wrong. And abortion is wrong.



[edit on 9/13/2005 by Amethyst]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Abortion kills children--what more is there to understand? Are you saying I should be able to kill my 3-year-old in the "privacy" of my own home? Killing is not a private matter.


You gave an answer based on a religious belief.

Another example might be: Abortion does not kill children, because a 6 week old fetus is not a child. That might be the belief of someone else. Is your belief more right than theirs? No, it's not.

And you know very well that there's a world of difference between a 3 year old child - who has been born - and a fetus which has not.




Everyone has the inherent right to life--including the unborn.


That's where the ambiguity lies. And that's what needs to be cleared up. As it stands, sometimes a fetus does have rights - in the case of Laci & Conner's Law. And sometimes, it does not. Thus, the ambiguity.



Stealing is prohibited by Scripture, yet you're not screaming about laws against theft.


I'm not entirely sure of your point there. I don't follow scripture, but I realise that taking someone else's property is "wrong". Are you saying that the unborn fetus is property?
Are you saying that Scripture should be the basis of law?

(stealing as a criminal act was known well before the Bible was written - thus, adding to my confusion as to where you're going with this bit)



It's not about religion, it's about what's right and wrong. And abortion is wrong.


"Right and wrong" are often religious ideals though - that's the problem. In YOUR eyes, it's wrong - and that's based, I'm guessing, in your religious beliefs, no? Abortion is wrong, to you, because you believe a fetus is a child.

Obviously, not everyone agrees with you.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Amethyst
Abortion kills children--what more is there to understand? Are you saying I should be able to kill my 3-year-old in the "privacy" of my own home? Killing is not a private matter.


You gave an answer based on a religious belief.


No, it's based on science.


Another example might be: Abortion does not kill children, because a 6 week old fetus is not a child. That might be the belief of someone else. Is your belief more right than theirs? No, it's not.


You say the sky is green and I say it's blue. Doesn't matter what anyone else believes--what's true is true. Truth is not relative.


And you know very well that there's a world of difference between a 3 year old child - who has been born - and a fetus which has not.


I also know there's a difference between an adolescent and a senior citizen. Just different points along the continuum of life.





Everyone has the inherent right to life--including the unborn.


That's where the ambiguity lies. And that's what needs to be cleared up. As it stands, sometimes a fetus does have rights - in the case of Laci & Conner's Law. And sometimes, it does not. Thus, the ambiguity.


So what's the difference between one unborn baby and another? Either that child is a person or it's not. You can't have it both ways.




Stealing is prohibited by Scripture, yet you're not screaming about laws against theft.


I'm not entirely sure of your point there. I don't follow scripture, but I realise that taking someone else's property is "wrong". Are you saying that the unborn fetus is property?
Are you saying that Scripture should be the basis of law?

(stealing as a criminal act was known well before the Bible was written - thus, adding to my confusion as to where you're going with this bit)


Just as murder was a criminal act before the Scriptures were written. The problem is, people treat unborn babies like property--hence the comparison with slavery.




It's not about religion, it's about what's right and wrong. And abortion is wrong.


"Right and wrong" are often religious ideals though - that's the problem. In YOUR eyes, it's wrong - and that's based, I'm guessing, in your religious beliefs, no? Abortion is wrong, to you, because you believe a fetus is a child.


"Religion" really doesn't have much to do with it. But our country's Constitution WAS based on the Bible--believe it or not. As I pointed out before, there are even pro-life atheists.

You're trying to say that morality is relative. That's an oxymoron.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
No, it's based on science.


Since when?

Science allows that until it's born, it's a fetus. Where does science say that a fetus is inherently a child?



You say the sky is green and I say it's blue. Doesn't matter what anyone else believes--what's true is true. Truth is not relative.


This is just an irrelevant statement, and has absolutely no bearing on the discussion. But fwiw, truth is often relative.




So what's the difference between one unborn baby and another? Either that child is a person or it's not. You can't have it both ways.


I agree! This is part of the problem - the law has sent two very, very different messages. This is what needs to be rectified and clarified.



"Religion" really doesn't have much to do with it. But our country's Constitution WAS based on the Bible--believe it or not.


Hmm. Now you can't have it both ways, either


If the Constitution was in fact based on religion, then by simple extension amendments and decisions related therein have religious connotations. And this is actually part of the problem I'm having with it all. Religion has no place in the law.



You're trying to say that morality is relative. That's an oxymoron.


I'm saying morality is subjective. It's not an oxymoron. The world isn't black and white, and for good reason.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by Amethyst
No, it's based on science.


Since when?


The religious belief in life at conception is so new it would make a pious man's head spin as little as 500 years ago, much moreso a thousand.

The "breathe of life" stuff from the Bible was the absolute for millenia. Until it breathes on it's own, it is not alive. There were no "children" in wombs EVER until some pretty recent scientific efforts at understanding various viabilities at various gestations (which Roe does it's best to honor and accomodate). Even according to the OT striking another man's pregnant wife to cause her to lose your child was worthy of nothing more than a simple fine (perhaps a goat) and only IF the offended "father" demanded it in compensation for his lost property.

Not that any of that matters. I just find Christian revisionism of it's own historical understanding of the metaphysics of life uh interesting.

And it is a privacy debate here in these modern times. Plain and simple. Some people think the people have rights. Some think the government does. I'm with the people.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
In bible no where does it say "Thous shalt not Abort"

A fetus, according to the bible, is not human!!! It is property!!! So all these Pro-Killing doctors/pregnant women are going against the bible when they kill because it says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" no "Thou SHalt Not Kill unless you feel like it then go ahead and go on a killing spree".





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join