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.

 

Moveon.org attempts to use Katrina disaster to take on nominee Roberts for supreme court.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   
www.usatoday.com...


The televised images of poverty-stricken evacuees from Hurricane Katrina are part of a provocative, last-minute effort by a liberal interest group to divert federal Judge John Roberts' path to confirmation as chief justice.

'We believe John Roberts' record on civil rights ... is clearly not the direction our country needs to head now,' a MoveOn.org spokesperson said.
By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

MoveOn.org Political Action plans to unveil a TV ad on Monday that questions whether Roberts is sensitive enough to civil rights concerns to lead the Supreme Court. The ad suggests that the plight of the mostly African-American evacuees in New Orleans showed that poverty remains a serious problem among minorities, said Ben Brandzel, the group's advocacy director. In a mix of judicial and racial politics, the ad then suggests that minorities could suffer if the Senate confirms Roberts.

"The connection is obvious," Brandzel said. "The images after Hurricane Katrina show we still live in a society where significant racial inequities exist. We believe John Roberts' record on civil rights ... is clearly not the direction our country needs to head now."


so wat do you think? they gone to far? in my opinion yes definitely, because Roberts has been a defender of gay rights and other issues that involves minorities. he is more on into following the law then to present his personal views of minorities.


[edit on 8-9-2005 by deltaboy]

[edit on 8-9-2005 by deltaboy]




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
SICK, SICK, SICK!

As a Catholic, I am happy and proud that a fellow Catholic is one step away from being the Chief Justice. I believe he would be the first, though I may be wrong.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
so wat do you think? they gone to far? in my opinion yes definitely, because Roberts has been a defender of gay rights and other issues that involves minorities. he is more on into following the law then to present his personal views of minorities.


I don't think so. The severe concerns over Robert's on civil rights (and frankly all individual rights versus government and corporations' "right" to infringe on those rights) were already there long before he got the insane nod to be pushed up in charge of the US Supreme Court as Chief Justice.

Civil rights groups cite concerns over Roberts
Question record on voting, busing
Boston.com
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | July 22, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has a history of working to roll back government affirmative action and voting rights programs enacted to help minorities overcome the effects of past discrimination, leading some civil rights groups to eye him warily.

As an aide in the Reagan administration, Roberts helped develop legal arguments to narrow the scope of the Voting Rights Act and curb court-ordered busing for school desegregation purposes. The Bush administration has released only heavily redacted versions of Roberts's memos from this era, and some civil rights groups are calling for the full versions to be made public.


Is it "sick" to show REAL people and VALID concerns to highlight issues in an ad?

Certainly no more than to show a FLAG or group of actors playing a family or contrive an issue like senators with valid questions for such an esteemed position are slammed as "anti-Christian" or filibustering people of faith.

Now that's sick. Like his faith matters. Can he do the job? Is he against the grain? Is he insane? Kind of important to know before a lifetime appointment.


[edit on 8-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
It makes perfect sense. After all, MoveOn condemned Bush for using 9-11 for political gain, but Katrina is fair game. The rules only apply to Republicans, it would seem.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It makes perfect sense. After all, MoveOn condemned Bush for using 9-11 for political gain, but Katrina is fair game. The rules only apply to Republicans, it would seem.


Or to use a proven effective technique...



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Moveon.org is such a despirate bottom scrapping organization they will take advantage of any situation to promote their agenda including making points on the backs of people in dire straights. This is gutter politics of the lowest kind. The lowest. It is standard format for Liberals and Moveon.org.
They have little shame about whom they drag in the gutters with them.

I posted this article in the room about the Supreme court nominations on this board Politics at ATS. I will repost it on this one since it seems appropriate.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I have been musing on this topic of the Supreme Court nominations for some time now having been through several administrations in my lifetime and noticed the furvor and emotions involved in these nominations and confirmations.
In my rabid musings I have come to a not so standard conclusion. I have not heard this in the "media " which is supposed to be "looking out for us."

See if some of you can follow this line of thinking as it is somewhat involved and lengthy.
Economists,psychologists, manufacturers have been for years involved in the process of studying human behavior, paricularly in the arena of sales and merchandizing new customers. Economics is in fact politics when it is brought out to its logical conclusion.
What psychologists and politicians know about a nation like America is that the mover and shaker in America economically and politically is the female..not the male. Females in our economy and political system determine what kind of house gets bought , what kind of car, clothes , groceries, what home improvements get made..etc etc etc...et al. It is the woman ...the female of the species which has control over this coast to coast. Now that they are voting it also means that the women are the key in elections. Coast to Coast...especially in high electorial vote states.
What the democrats have learned long ago..is that it is core and key to put the women of this country on a emotional string/issue to gaurantee a predictable controlable voting block at election time to gaurantee what levers they will pull. This means to women..sexuality..specifically reproduction. Much more easily done with emotional women than men.
The democrats have tried to put this issue before the public in Congress and Congress just wont buy it. The tack they have chosen to take is to bypass Congress and the Executive branch and have this put into effect by Judicial review/legislation from the bench. This is a gauranteed way to bypass what the Congress and President or the American people want. To get a issue like this passed by Roe vs Wade means that they are gauranteed womens votes particularly in high electorial vote states. Hence the highly emotion charged issues and accuisations surrounding the nominees for the judicial bench. This issue has reached very extreame proportions today. Much more than I reacall in the past.
The Roe vs Wade issue surrounding court nominations is about potential votes to keep one party in power over the other party. It is not about abortion per se..but votes. The democrats know this as do the Republicans. They are not necessarily informing the public of this view. The democrats want the votes to stay or get back in power. The Republicans want to keep them out of office and themselves in power. This means controling who gets to the bench in the Federal Judiciary. One group to get the votes they so despirately need the other to deny them the votes thereby strengthening the republican position.
The republicans will use the conservative churchs in this nation to push their quest for power. They will burn or turn on the churchs down the road when it becomes expedient to do so.
The democrats will use any technique they can to keep Roe vs Wade on the books and in effect. Any emotionally charged technique to get voters to the polls.
This is my analysis of what is going on concerning the Supreme court nominations. It is also going on down at the lower court levels...the appelate courts.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
its irrevelant that he was against Affirmative action, even im against it because it gives points to minorities while brushing those even whites who earned the right to admit to the colleges or universities they want. like for example the California vs Bakke case back in 1978 which Allan Bakke had higher grade than the minority candidates but they overlooked him for the minorities. im not against diversity but im against giving an advantage to minorities who have bad grades and just admit them. only those minoritie who earned good grades should be admitted. like for example Asian Americans who did far better than Hispanics or African Americans and even Caucasians. makes u wonder why.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Did you see the update? It seems it was never a real ad, just one guy's idea for an ad. They say they never intended to make it a real ad.

Update



MoveOn.org Political Action's advocacy director Ben Brandzel had laid out plans for such an ad to USA TODAY on Wednesday. But Thursday, the group's executive director said "we regret any misunderstanding that may have arisen because of anything that our staff member might have told USA TODAY's reporter."


I do think it would have been in very poor taste to use the victims' pictures in the ad. John Roberts' civil rights and personal rights issues can stand on their own as insane, without using the victims of a tragedy.

It's much like Bush using 9/11. It's obvious when people are using victims and it stinks.

Deltaboy, it would be helpful to have the title reflect this update.

[edit on 8-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I am very upset that this Mr. Roberts stance on "Women rights" and also "civil Rights" are not an issue.

I can believe that "Religion" is the bases to appoint anybody in this country, to the highest court and also make him a "Chief"

Well he has a history of been very cynical about women and discrimination.

His comments about civil right issues span from the Reagan era.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OXmanK


Or to use a proven effective technique...


And since when was it wrong to capitalize on catastropic events for political gain?

The whole rnc convention was filled with speeches about 9/11 and terrorism, all to stir the pot of emotions.

This is politics, and since when did these politician's ever play fair?

They're all scum if you ask me.

But despite the corruption and tasteless tactics from both sides, we will continue to have it because people in this country just don't know when enough is enough, as long as your party wins who the hell cares about ethics and the right thing?!



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
But despite the corruption and tasteless tactics from both sides, we will continue to have it because people in this country just don't know when enough is enough, as long as your party wins who the hell cares about ethics and the right thing?!


!!!!!Well said!!!!!!!




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Roberts is unfit for the chief justice spot.

He is for the all-powerful president (think: Abu Ghraib) and he is living in Leave it to Beaver la la land. He thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. This is a man who does not live in most people's reality.

If Bush had a brain in his/their head, he/they would nominate Sandra Day O'Connor for the Chief Justice postion.

But no.... we got dumbsh**** and dumb****** at the helm, greediest of the greedy.

So PISS OFF REGULAR PEOPLE! YOU'RE USELESS FEEDERS, THE LOT OF U!



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Roberts is unfit for the chief justice spot.

He is for the all-powerful president (think: Abu Ghraib) and he is living in Leave it to Beaver la la land. He thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. This is a man who does not live in most people's reality.

If Bush had a brain in his/their head, he/they would nominate Sandra Day O'Connor for the Chief Justice postion.

But no.... we got dumbsh**** and dumb****** at the helm, greediest of the greedy.

So PISS OFF REGULAR PEOPLE! YOU'RE USELESS FEEDERS, THE LOT OF U!


So that justifies using the horrible loss of a multitude of people to promote your political agenda?



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Dude, you need to step outside the fishbowl and catch a breath of fresh air.

I am not promoting any agenda.

This is the first time I've been on ATS in about a month.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   

If Bush had a brain in his/their head, he/they would nominate Sandra Day O'Connor for the Chief Justice postion.

If a certain poster whose name I shall not mention had a brain in his/its head, he/it would have realized that Sandra Day O'Connor had already announced her retirement.

What would naming a Justice who was retiring to the position of Chief Justice do anyway, unless O'Connor was willing to be used for some cynical "See, I named a woman to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, even if it was only for three weeks!" approach, which wouldn't help President Bush anyway, and just make O'Connor look like a naif.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Roberts has been a defender of gay rights and other issues that involves minorities.

How?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
ECK, something I didn't mention that I just realized may have been misunderstood. I didn't me your as in you specifically. I meant to say, does that justify MoveOn doing that to push their political agenda.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It makes perfect sense. After all, MoveOn condemned Bush for using 9-11 for political gain, but Katrina is fair game. The rules only apply to Republicans, it would seem.


Oh come on JJ, don't make the Republicans out to be innocent victims. They were accusing Cindy of using her son for political gain.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Did I say Republicans were innocent victims, or did I call MoveOn hypocrites? You be the judge.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Mr. Roberts, back in the 80’s while working for Reagan, was one of the first ones to may gender remarks when Supreme court Justice Sandra O’Connor was considered to be Chief Justice at that time.

He Scoffed and said that political gender gap was a “Crass Political Consideration” when the subject was brought up to President Reagan.

He also was cynical and was involve on tramping progress on key issues to benefit women and their equal rights.

We al know that Reagan was very much into calling women complain about equality a “Women issue” sarcastically.

He also was one of the first loud voice in his disapproved of Abortion rights.

He seems to believe that discrimination is not an issue.




Roberts, who was nominated as a justice by President Bush last month, advised the White House to strike language from a housing bill that referred to the ''fundamental right to be free from discrimination.'' He said that ''there of course is no such right.''



And this is the man that the president wants for “Chief justice” he sounds like a fundamentalist from the KKK and Pat Robertson’s spooky group.



''Many of the documents made it clear that as a junior official in the Reagan administration, he was part of an intense effort to impede progress on numerous key issues, such as progress on equal rights for women,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), a member of the Judiciary Committee that will consider Roberts' nomination.


You know I am a women and I said this man is a chauvinist pig.

He also has ties to the FRC.

These are the Motto of this group.



FRC’s Principal Issues:

• Since the early 1990’s, FRC has emerged as a leading conservative think-tank championing “traditional family values” by lobbying for state-sponsored prayer in public schools, private school “vouchers,” abstinence-only programs, filtering software on public library computers, the right to discriminate against gay men and lesbians.
• FRC’s objective is to establish a conservative Christian standard of morality in all of America’s domestic and foreign policy.
• FRC has dedicated itself to working against reproductive freedom, sex education, equal rights for gays and lesbians and their families, funding of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FRC supports a school prayer amendment and would like to ‘disestablish’ the Department of Education.


What all these organizations have in common? They all “Reconstructionist” that wants to used Jesus and God to pursue their agendas to take away “Women’s Rights” and “Civil Rights” and wants to abolish the constitution because is not enough God’s friendly, just because their “Moral Majority said so.

He also has been supported by “Operation Rescue” another group that seeks to take away the rights of women and monitor their “Uterus”

Well it seems that if embracing a theocracy in our nation is what the “Moral majority” wants but most people has not clue as how much damage this man can do in the Supreme Court.

www.pfaw.org...

www.operationrescue.org...

www.pfaw.org...

I bet a lot of men will love Mr. Roberts to help ut women in theri places in the kitchen where they belong.@@:




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join