It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Anita Hill Resumes Attack on Conservative Court Nominees

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Wow, even I'm shocked at this. Anita Hill has resurfaced to attack another presidential Supreme Court nominee, after her unsuccessful attempt to scuttle Clarence Thomas in 1991...

Her article: New York Newsday

You'd think the liberals could at least find new actors...sheesh.




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Come on people! This is giving me a headache! This is so early '90's!

I don't want to go back and revisit that.

Anita HIll missed the boat. She needs to go back to whatever it is she was doing before this.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
She isn't attacking the nominee:



I don't know enough about John G. Roberts' positions on any issues to pass judgment on his suitability for the court. The concerns I have today are directed more to the process and standards for the nomination. For if confirmability politics continue to control the Supreme Court selection process, it will likely change the face of the court for the foreseeable future.


And based on the information presented specifically in her article, I feel she makes a reasonable point. I don't claim to give the activities on Capitol Hill little more than a cursory glance, but even with my sheltered intake of politics, anyone in the public eye up there generally won't shut up about their political stances, and Roberts seems to be very much an exception to that rule. So far it seems (in my quasi-educated opinion) that Roberts has only been nominated because he's a conservative and has a pedigree. I've heard no mention of his stance on anything, so it's not like we can look at it as they're electing him for stronger anti-abortion hopes for example.



You'd think the liberals could at least find new actors...sheesh.


Well, I heard there was a meeting to decide all of the people to oppose any conservative bills or nominations, held back in January, and they decided that bringing in new blood at this juncture wouldn't be cost effective. Perhaps next year with the '06 College Draft prospects they can get a better line up, but for now got to stick with the 3rd string veterans.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
So far it seems (in my quasi-educated opinion) that Roberts has only been nominated because he's a conservative and has a pedigree. I've heard no mention of his stance on anything, so it's not like we can look at it as they're electing him for stronger anti-abortion hopes for example.


He's a total yes-man. He's on the record as saying he thinks the Roe v. Wade decision was "decide wrongly."

He's against it.

I'm actually pointing this out as a conservative Republican (which in today's vernacular, I'm not sure what that means - according to today's Neo-Republicans.)

I am against this guy. Here's why:



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.


To me, Civile rights, in this day and age trump war.



[edit on 7/25/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Crap! I'm sorry, I forgot to link that.

Here it is:

www.onlinejournal.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The problem is that those rights clearly aren't in the constitution, and likely can't constitutionally be granted by Congess.

The big question of Judge Roberts is will he put more weight on stare decisis or will he actually go back and read the Constitution himself?

I hope he will be the type who actually reads the Constitution and considers it from the original meaning of the founding fathers. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document as the liberals would like to have us believe, it's a founding document written in stone and can only be changed by the Amendment process. Why have a document written down if its meaning can change on the whim of 9 unelected people????



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Obviously by the latest Bush candidate the only ones that have rights in this country are, middle age white conservative, christians fundamentalist men.
Along with their stepford's wive companions.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The problem is that those rights clearly aren't in the constitution, and likely can't constitutionally be granted by Congess.


Abortion?

Right now, Roe v. Wade IS the LAW of the land.


The big question of Judge Roberts is will he put more weight on stare decisis or will he actually go back and read the Constitution himself?


YOu mean, will he be a revisionist judge (on the right side)? Let's hope he follows O'Conner's path and takes each case as they come. Unless, of course, it has to do with torture and Wontanamo. Then its an automatic yes. See, that's what I can't abide. His giving Bush the keys to the kingdom.


I hope he will be the type who actually reads the Constitution and considers it from the original meaning of the founding fathers. The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document as the liberals would like to have us believe,


That's odd. I, an avowed conservative Republican consider the Constitution to be a most living document. Hell, with the right politician finessing it, its utterly fluid at times. Just like the Bible. Yes, I also believe that is a living, breathing document. Call me crazy. I care not.


it's a founding document written in stone and can only be changed by the Amendment process.


If it is in stone, it cannot be changed.

And yet, it can.


[edit on 7/25/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Some wish to find a Right of Privacy in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

If they mean nothing specific, they mean nothing at all!

It might be quite interesting to ask the nominee about these.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
There were more than one willing to testify about Thomas's atrocious character, (whether or not that's valid in such hearings).

Angela Wright waited in the wings under subpoena to testirfy about Clarence Thomas also.

www.aliciapatterson.org...

In addition, a (hospitalized) Rose Jourdain was willing to corroborate:
64.233.161.104...:leYPxdlm470J:homepages.law.asu.edu/~kayed/class-evidence/19-hrs-witn/19-hrs-witn.htm+%22angela+wright%22+hospital +%22clarence+thomas%22+%22Rose+Jourdain%22&hl=en

In addition, Wright's immediate supervisor was not available to corroborate Wright's good character, being in hospital herself (the supervisor).



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The problem is that those rights clearly aren't in the constitution, and likely can't constitutionally be granted by Congess.

The right to abortion? The founders were familiar with abortion, its not like it didn't exist, and they didn't make it double murder to kill pregnant women. They weren't idiots, give them some credits. The federal and state governments have no right to interfere in that decision. Obviously there is intelligent disagreement over this, as the peopel on the SCOTUS arent' shills and a few have found that abortion is not a protection.

So Congress needs to just settle it and make an amendment protecting the right. The founders were sceptical about enumerating many of the rights in the constituion, because they felt that in doing so people would say 'see, its no in the constituion specifically, so its not a right'. Thats why, of course, there is a bills of rights as a set of ammendments to the constitution. Looks like it might be time to specifically enurmate abortion amoung those rights.

The big question of Judge Roberts is will he put more weight on stare decisis or will he actually go back and read the Constitution himself?


I hope he will be the type who actually reads the Constitution and considers it from the original meaning of the founding fathers.

The founders were wise, and in their wisdom they recognized that the government had to be able to adapt and change.


The Constitution is not a "living, breathing" document as the liberals would like to have us believe, it's a founding document written in stone and can only be changed by the Amendment process.

True enough that it can onl be changed, but all laws have to be interpreted.

Why have a document written down if its meaning can change on the whim of 9 unelected people????

They've never changed the meaning of it. If anything, making abortion illegal would be changing the constitution, extending the powers of the federal and state governments over the people.

I mean, what many people call 'conservative' interpretations are merely social conservative re-interpretations of the constitution. The SCOTUS didn't invent the position in Roe v Wade, they didn't add to the constituion, they took a sensible reading of it and found that the state can't force a woman to completeher pregnacy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join