Chilly Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 He made other comments to the effect that Roe was the law of the land in his confirmation hearing. Besides, this is an old-school conservative who'll honor stare decisis; he isn't the cultural conservative that will rock the boat. I put little stock in the brief; IMO, he was zealously representing his client. This is the kind of lawyer the bench needs. 385598[/snapback] Yeah, I read that this morning in the AP article and it eased my Roe v Wade concerns. Overall from what I know about him, I like the pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I just read it differently than you. The point was, it was pretty clear to me that the poster was using the quote from the article to imply that even liberals like Ginsburg and Dickowitz were against Roe v. Wade, meaning they were on the pro-lifers side of the argument. Especially when Ginsburg's objection was "seemed to me not the way courts generally work." 386138[/snapback] NO !!! The "poster" (me) was NOT using the quote to imply Ginsburg was on the pro-life side. My point was that you can say and write that "Roe v. Wade" was "bad law" and that would not always be indicative of what your thoughts are on the subject of abortion. So, Roberts wrote that Roe v. Wade was "bad law"; but it is still not crystal clear what he really thinks about abortion. He'll never answer a question about a hypothetical or how he might have ruled on something that has already been decided or even how he might rule on something that will come up. Some might be able to guess what he thinks based on his background. But, think about how that worked out with Sandra Day O'Connor, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 NO !!! The "poster" (me) was NOT using the quote to imply Ginsburg was on the pro-life side. My point was that you can say and write that "Roe v. Wade" was "bad law" and that would not always be indicative of what your thoughts are on the subject of abortion. So, Roberts wrote that Roe v. Wade was "bad law"; but it is still not crystal clear what he really thinks about abortion. He'll never answer a question about a hypothetical or how he might have ruled on something that has already been decided or even how he might rule on something that will come up. Some might be able to guess what he thinks based on his background. But, think about how that worked out with Sandra Day O'Connor, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. 386168[/snapback] Fair enough. And you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I actually heard someone complain about his youth and lack of long-term judicial experience. Granted he's kind of a pretty boy and all, but certainly he's at least on par with Clarence Thomas as a jurist...of course that's a pretty low bar. The only thing that I wonder about is his political background and experience as an attorney represented big bidness. But you know - he may be ok. His political affiliation and beliefs may not matter if he's an ethical man. To illustrate: when the Repigs contested the gubernatorial race in WA, they selected the venue to file their lawsuit. They had the whole state to choose from, it being a statewide election. So they chose a conservative county and a known Republican-leaning judge in Eastern WA (which is Red enough to discuss secession) ... and he ruled against them. And that's what a jurist is supposed to do - rule on the law, not on personal ideology, public opinion or anything else. Obviously interpreting the law can be influenced by personal views, but an ethical judge tries to avoid that. Given this administration's overall lack of ethics one might wonder if their choice is any indication of HIS, but I'm willing to wait until I learn more about him. It could be far worse based on what I know so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 My opinion on this guy is that if it's apparents that he's going to vote down roe v. wade, rehnquist will have a legacy too... He'll stay till he dies. I sincerely hope that roberts comes out and states that he won't vote it down, call himself a moderate, get confirmed, and all will be well. However, he is still from buffalo and loves the bills, which leads to him probably choking and screwing something up for himself. 385920[/snapback] He's stated the roe/wade is settled law. Front page of my paper this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I actually heard someone complain about his youth and lack of long-term judicial experience. Granted he's kind of a pretty boy and all, but certainly he's at least on par with Clarence Thomas as a jurist...of course that's a pretty low bar. The only thing that I wonder about is his political background and experience as an attorney represented big bidness. But you know - he may be ok. His political affiliation and beliefs may not matter if he's an ethical man. To illustrate: when the Repigs contested the gubernatorial race in WA, they selected the venue to file their lawsuit. They had the whole state to choose from, it being a statewide election. So they chose a conservative county and a known Republican-leaning judge in Eastern WA (which is Red enough to discuss secession) ... and he ruled against them. And that's what a jurist is supposed to do - rule on the law, not on personal ideology, public opinion or anything else. Obviously interpreting the law can be influenced by personal views, but an ethical judge tries to avoid that. Given this administration's overall lack of ethics one might wonder if their choice is any indication of HIS, but I'm willing to wait until I learn more about him. It could be far worse based on what I know so far. 386173[/snapback] His cases and clients are all over the board and aren't easy to pin down. For example, he handled the Microsoft appeal for the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 So, Roberts wrote that Roe v. Wade was "bad law"; but it is still not crystal clear what he really thinks about abortion. He'll never answer a question about a hypothetical or how he might have ruled on something that has already been decided or even how he might rule on something that will come up. Some might be able to guess what he thinks based on his background. But, think about how that worked out with Sandra Day O'Connor, Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. 386168[/snapback] I think most, if not all DWI laws are "bad laws". Does that mean I advocate drunken driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I think most, if not all DWI laws are "bad laws". Does that mean I advocate drunken driving? 386203[/snapback] If you ask Chuck Schumer it does. He has stated over and over that the nomiee's personal opinions are more important than his/her competence. Way to respect your country Chuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I absolutely love this pick. Solid choice...from a moderate's point of view. Very bright and isn't a zealot. Roe v. Wade is safe. 385593[/snapback] so NY Orangeman, you seem to be happy that unborn babies will continue to be murdered. That makes this a good pick in your mind? I suggest that even if you really fell that way, perhaps you could post some other less stupid reason to like the lick. The murder of the innocent unborn is a really poor choice. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 so NY Orangeman, you seem to be happy that unborn babies will continue to be murdered. That makes this a good pick in your mind? I suggest that even if you really fell that way, perhaps you could post some other less stupid reason to like the lick. The murder of the innocent unborn is a really poor choice. IMHO 386252[/snapback] We could take this a number of different directions, from when life actually begins to a discussion in personal liberties. I suspect it wouldn't accomplish much. Stupid? Not at all, though you are entitled to your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The murder of the innocent unborn is a really poor choice. IMHO 386252[/snapback] Yeah. Very poor choice. Much better to advocate killing them after they're born, if they happen to be born into Islam. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...indpost&p=19806 Rich, you are such a !@#$ing idiot, it's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 His cases and clients are all over the board and aren't easy to pin down. For example, he handled the Microsoft appeal for the states. 386200[/snapback] Then that bodes well. He may have a respect for the law and democracy and our Constitutionthat stands apart from his personal beliefs. That's all anyone could ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Then that bodes well. He may have a respect for the law and democracy and our Constitutionthat stands apart from his personal beliefs. That's all anyone could ask. 386363[/snapback] Actually, sadly, most people ask just the opposite. Kind of surprising that Monkey Boy nominated someone like that though, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Actually, sadly, most people ask just the opposite. Kind of surprising that Monkey Boy nominated someone like that though, isn't it? 386366[/snapback] Stupid people do ask the opposite because the learned about the 3 branches of gov't and their functions in grade school and then poof! it's gone. Their little pea-brains just can't fathom being "non-partisan" in any branch of government. I don't know if it's surprising or not. I don't know enough about the guy. I don't trust the chimp to ever do the right thing, but then again even he can't always be wrong. And given that he can't get Bolton confirmed an extremist would have been Borked for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Rich, you are such a !@#$ing idiot, it's pathetic. 386351[/snapback] "What are: Things that no longer need to be said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Yeah. Very poor choice. Much better to advocate killing them after they're born, if they happen to be born into Islam. http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showt...indpost&p=19806 Rich, you are such a !@#$ing idiot, it's pathetic. 386351[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Here is an interesting read that may give some insight into Roberts. It is from an interview in 1997: Panel Interview-Newshour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 If you ask Chuck Schumer it does. He has stated over and over that the nomiee's personal opinions are more important than his/her competence. Way to respect your country Chuck. 386241[/snapback] I watched Schumer on I believe it was Meet the Press talking about this after he was directly asked that question. He said that stances on issues weren't important, but that a stance on a certain ruling should be relevant (say, no a stance on abortion, but one on Roe v Wade). I'd agree with him. Its important to see how a judge rules, and if it adheres to the law or not. From what I understand, thats all Schumer was advocating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Yep, the legality of abortion is the largest question currently facing the country. DING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eventualchamps Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I actually heard someone complain about his youth and lack of long-term judicial experience. Granted he's kind of a pretty boy and all, but certainly he's at least on par with Clarence Thomas as a jurist...of course that's a pretty low bar. The only thing that I wonder about is his political background and experience as an attorney represented big bidness. But you know - he may be ok. His political affiliation and beliefs may not matter if he's an ethical man. To illustrate: when the Repigs contested the gubernatorial race in WA, they selected the venue to file their lawsuit. They had the whole state to choose from, it being a statewide election. So they chose a conservative county and a known Republican-leaning judge in Eastern WA (which is Red enough to discuss secession) ... and he ruled against them. And that's what a jurist is supposed to do - rule on the law, not on personal ideology, public opinion or anything else. Obviously interpreting the law can be influenced by personal views, but an ethical judge tries to avoid that. Given this administration's overall lack of ethics one might wonder if their choice is any indication of HIS, but I'm willing to wait until I learn more about him. It could be far worse based on what I know so far. 386173[/snapback] "This administrations lack of ethics". I'll believe you if you spewed the same Cr*p about Clinton (whose lack of ethics was so horrendous that he was impeached). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts