SCOTUS Nominee Is Roberts

[MannyIsGod]

Even with this man on the court, the Roe v Wade margin should still be 5-4 in favor of the decision.

[Extra Stout]

It appears the biggest criticism of Roberts the left-wing advocacy groups can come up with is that he is not a liberal.

To those of you that lean left, understand that Bush is not going to nominate a liberal. That should be obvious.

They'll need more than that to derail his candidacy.

Roberts is among the most qualified people possible to be a SCJ. He is prominent in the Beltway social community, popular both left and right (I say that not to imply he should be confirmed because of this, but rather to indicate that a lot of mainstream Dems will accept this choice). He already has the stamp of approval from the "Gang of 14," which gives him all the votes he needs.

Roberts may get slapped around a little bit by the Judiciary Committee, but he'll get confirmed. I predict a 99-1 vote, with only Boxer voting against because she just doesn't give a .

Unless, of course, something comes up that Bush's background check missed, or the libs are able to fabricate something.

[MannyIsGod]

Fabricate something?

[Extra Stout]

Fabricate something?

As if left-wingers haven't fabricated "evidence" to smear conservatives anytime recently?

*ahem* National Guard "memos" *ahem*

[sbsquared]

Considering that he was confirmed 98-0 two years ago, it will be pretty hard for the libs to change their mind now and deny confirmation. President Bush again showed that he's not the mindless idiot the left think he is!! Way to go President Bush!!

[FromWayDowntown]

Considering that he was confirmed 98-0 two years ago, it will be pretty hard for the libs to change their mind now and deny confirmation. President Bush again showed that he's not the mindless idiot the left think he is!! Way to go President Bush!!

Well, that's true to an extent. The stakes are much different in appointing someone to SCOTUS than they are when appointing someone to the D.C. Circuit. Certainly, the D.C. Circuit is an influential court, but it is still answerable to the Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit's constructions of statutes and the Cons ution is subject to review; the Supreme Court's decisions face no such scrutiny and become the law of the land.

Robert Bork was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 1982, but came up very short in the Senate in 1987 when nominated by Reagan to the Supreme Court.

I think Roberts is leagues different than Bork, but one lesson of the Bork quagmire is that you can't presume that a previous confirmation will assure a later one.

[MannyIsGod]

As if left-wingers haven't fabricated "evidence" to smear conservatives anytime recently?

*ahem* National Guard "memos" *ahem*

Your right, the left side of our society has the patent on fabrication. You guys crack me up.

[Shelly]

Julia Roberts is his sister???

[Extra Stout]

Your right, the left side of our society has the patent on fabrication. You guys crack me up.

Exactly why would the right need to fabricate anything on Roberts? He's Bush's nominee. Maybe he's really just a robot controlled by Rove?

[SWC Bonfire]

Your right, the left side of our society has the patent on fabrication. You guys crack me up.

He didn't say it was an exclusive patent. Licensing agreements are available.

[Extra Stout]

Julia Roberts is his sister???

I think that was a spoof, given that the same site reports that Jeb Bush was looking to investigate Michael Schiavo's ties to Hurricane Dennis because "Dennis" spelled backwards is "Sinned."

[MannyIsGod]

Fair enough!

[mookie2001]

his name is John Roberts

[word]

The liberals are outraged at a Republican nominee for the SC.

In other news, sky is blue, grass is green, the Hawks suck at basketball, etc.

I've been a republican all of my life but I'm right on the cusp of switching. The republicans always ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility, against government intrusion and since the Gingrich 'revolution' they've been running amock in both the federal and state legislatures and have basically done exactly the opposite of who they say they are.

The encroachment on civil liberties since the mid-90's has been nothing short of astounding all in the name of fighting crime. You know now, in California, they are trying to start a 'subversive' registry. All that 'sex offender' registration sounded good and may have made some people feel good, but in the end it's of no real value and registration for all sorts of things is just right around the corner.

Roberts recently represented the State of Alaska on a sex offender registration law that was overturned in the appelate courts but upheld by the USSC. What Alaska wanted to do was go back 'forever' to require registration for any type of sex crime regardless of how long ago it was, or what the offense. Two people challenged it that had been released and served their time more than 20 years ago, but were required to register under the new Alaska law. The SC ruled on the side of the State of Alaska in a 6-3 decision that it was not 'ex post facto' punishment.

Now, there are moves to require drug offenses, DWI's and theft offenses to register and in some cases, most particularly DWI's, to have a 'special license' plates. But your DWI was 25 years ago you say ? Well under this recent ruling, that wouldn't matter. In the state of California, there is a move to register people with 'undesireable ideas'. Skinheads/neo-nazi's are the target of this particular witch hunt.

The Supreme Court will never allow that you say ? Don't be too sure.

" I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment than by violent and sudden usurpations. "

-- James Madison

[mookie2001]

John Roberts

[clubalien]

the worst they could do?
they could let government have right to take house and give to walmart for the greater good
they could say the patriot act is consin iooinal when it obviousdly isn't
they could make file sharing and VCRs illegal
the soprmme court could make it right to life and right to death not options
they could take our right to arm our selves
They could make seperate but equal toll roads possible
once the souprme court changes they can everything up

Ofcourse they go to far and then we can just assinate one of them, but still supreme court if peopel follow rullings could change are lives alot worse then just rowe versue way

[clubalien]

freedom of speech come on people this is one of the biggest thing s and to claim
[qoute]the worst the SC could do is repeal Roe v. Wade[/quote] is stupid

for example lets say you want to zone your area so toxic polution cannot be close to a school

[Spurminator]

I meant the worst in regards to abortion/choice, not the worst in regards to all issues.

Simma down.

[word]

Roe -v- Wade isn't going to be overturned. A Nixon appointed court upheld R v W in the first place. There are bigger fish to fry. Ahhhh what do I care, this country is more than likely done with no chance of ever becoming what it could have been. Democracy requires an educated population, not a brainwashed population, to survive. It's over, I believe that in my heart.

[mookie2001]

maybe some of yall can answer my question
if they got all superneocons on the sc
what case could give them a chance to overturn r vs w

could yall describe an example?

[clubalien]

remeber senseably they have to have a case about something to rule about it. However since their is no actual check on a soupreme court rulling the case could be about mowing grass and out of no where their rulling is to promote gay marriage

the government has a right to enforce peopel moving yards to inforce the beu y of the republic under the interstate commerica clause because tourist coudl be traveling from out of state and therefore gov can enforce just as it can enforce gay marrage

really there is no check to the rulling because the congress can pass a new cons uaonl ammednment banning gay marriage, but then the court can define gay as happy marrge then no happy poepel can get married

then the congree passes a amdent defineing happy and the court rules soemthing else

this is so huge peopel they serve for life and any judgement they make can change our whole society

[mookie2001]

its funny because a lot of chodes just think if they get a bunch of pro lifers on there they can just have a vote and knock it out
but i wonder what kind of case would have to come before them

[GoalTender]

the worst they could do?
they could let government have right to take house and give to walmart for the greater good
they could say the patriot act is consin iooinal when it obviousdly isn't
they could make file sharing and VCRs illegal
the soprmme court could make it right to life and right to death not options
they could take our right to arm our selves
They could make seperate but equal toll roads possible
once the souprme court changes they can everything up

Ofcourse they go to far and then we can just assinate one of them, but still supreme court if peopel follow rullings could change are lives alot worse then just rowe versue way

holy crap

[word]

Your lack of grammar and spelling skills pretty much rules out any opinion you could have. You can't spell 'people', form sentences or paragraphs, but you have an opinion on the supreme court, do ya ?

[mookie2001]

i agree with club alien

my question still stands
can anyone describe a potential case in which roe v wade could be overturned?