John Roberts - Supreme Disappointment

You certainly can't be surprised at the type of person nominated by Bush, can you?

---

This is a shrewd nomination. This man has an excellent reputation and outstanding credentials. He will be confirmed 65-35 or even closer. Millions of women will rue the day they voted for Bush.

The real battle will be with the next appointment.

And, when these young women cannot take care of their babies - the "big bad" government will provide subsidies to support them which will paid for by the taxes that Bush was going to cut!

interesting take from Ann Coulter of all people:

FIGHT -- FROM THE RIGHT: COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."

From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Developing...
Ann Coulter has doubts?

---

That's the scary thing (well, one of them)...it is being spun that he isn't anti-Roe v. Wade because he is on record as having answered (during confirmation hearings for the Appellate Court nomination) that in regard to abortion issues, he would "uphold the law of the land". As an Appellate judge, he would have no choice but to do that. The job of the Appellate Court is to do what the Supreme Court says it should do...which is to uphold the law of the land. It is an entirely different matter once he is on The Supreme Court...the judicial body that actually gets to decide what the law of the land *is*. It kills me that that statement is going to be manipulated to make him look acceptable to the moderates.

This is from today's Salon:

"Where does he stand on abortion?

Roberts has been involved in two key decisions while arguing on behalf of Republican administrations, both of which pro-choice groups consider attacks on women's reproductive rights.

In Rust v. Sullivan, the then-deputy solicitor general coauthored a brief in support of regulations prohibiting U.S. family planning programs, which get federal aid, from giving any abortion-related counseling. In that brief, he wrote: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled ... The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." The court upheld those regulations. In another case, involving the Operation Rescue, he coauthored the government's amicus brief supporting the group's right to target clinics, under the First Amendment, arguing that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deny women equal protection.

But in his confirmation hearing in 2003 to the appeals court, when asked about abortion, Roberts said that the Supreme Court was clear on the matter, and he could uphold it: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," he said. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Whether as a member of the court he would try to change that law remains to be seen."
link

---

I'm sorry...but who hasn't hired an illegal alien at some point or other???

---

Robbie, is that what you call it - "hiring"?

MM - at least it is not an outright lie like his father did with Thomas.

So obvious that there was not even a screen!!!!

Look at the headlines, no Rove to be found????

This is disturbing:

Operation Rescue Supports Bush’s Choice of John G. Roberts for US Supreme Court

Washington DC – President George W. Bush has chosen John G. Roberts to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor to the US Supreme Court. Operation Rescue supports this selection.

Roberts has shown strong conservative credentials with indications that he will not uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that decriminalized abortion. Roberts coauthored a 1990 legal brief that stated, “The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution.”

“A culture of life can never be built as long as Roe v. Wade is the law of the land,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

“We appreciate President Bush being a man of his word by appointing a judge that will respect the Right to Life acknowledged by our nation’s founding documents,” said Newman. “We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed.”

“Our nation has suffered enough under decades of liberal activist judges legislating from the bench,” said OR spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. “After 45 million dead children, we are guardedly optimistic that the confirmation of Judge Roberts will be a step toward restoring protections for the pre-born that were stolen from them in 1973.”
link

---

AND his wife as served as the Executive VP of an antiabortion group Feminists for Life...

"John Roberts may well fill the bill. Conservatives have to like his GOP pedigree, which includes stints as a legal counsel for Ronald Reagan and the senior George Bush; in 1991, he wrote a high court brief arguing that Roe v. Wade "was wrongly decided and should be overruled." His wife, Jane, has served as executive vice president of an antiabortion group, Feminists for Life. On another front, as a practicing lawyer, he even represented Fox Television."

And that's just women's issues. I haven't started looking into his stand on gay rights, but I can take a wild guess....
link

---

Yeah. I'm getting more fired up by the minute. I'm taking this *very* seriously and am finally pulling my head out of the sand where I planted it after the elections last year.

---