Supreme Court: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Liberal groups, however, say Roberts has taken positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty that endanger those rights. Abortion rights groups allege that Roberts is hostile to women's reproductive freedom and cite a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.He's no Roy Moore. He's no Alberto Gonzalez. He doesn't even sound like an Anton Scalia. He may, in fact, be one of the more reasonable choices for a 'conservative' nominee. Another portion of the same article is a little more encouraging:
"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 brief said.
Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sites of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. The letter said Roberts was one of the "very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation" and that his reputation as a "brilliant writer and oral advocate" was well deserved.So we'll see whether, as a Supreme Court Justice, if bringing down Roe would become a priority or not. Scanning the liberal 'sphere quickly, I'm guessing that this guy's history of anti-abortion activity will probably prove to piss me off royally. But my official stance as of now: could've been worse.
Update 1: Here we go:
Roberts's name appears on the government's brief defending the gag rule under which federally funded family-planning clinics were barred from offering abortion counseling. The brief (Rust v. Sullivan) argued in passing, as the Bush administration contended at the time, that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In another case, Mr. Roberts argued for the government that the activities of abortion protesters did not constitute discrimination against women. (Washington Post, June 7, 2001)Dickhead.
6 comments:
The scary thing is that his Wikipedia entry already talks about his nomination. That's one real time encyclopedia.
I wouldn't be all doom and gloom just yet. Know one knows what this guy thinks, so in all likely hood he is not the adventerous type and will probably not make any rulings or decisions which may upset people. He appears to be a judge who is yes politically aware but at the same time just another stiff at the table.
Hell, we are already becoming seen as a religiously fanatical nation in any event. It might suit ourselves to declare ourselves a theocracy, allow the senators and congressmen/women to choose our aristocracy, ban any sexual act except for discrete missionary sex fully clothed in a dark room with a lead vest separating the male and female, beat our heads agains the wall untill we only do what the television tells us (uuuhh, me like Britnay Speers, me must eat at mcdonalds...er no burger king..er no quisnos), and then we can live our nice lobotamized lives under god, because despite him giving us all Free Will he still makes every choice for us.
My new deity is Alfonso, Protector of Celery. All Hail Alfonso the Green and Crunchy!
dude, I love quiznos.
But to stay on topic, from everything I've seen so far, things could be a lot worse. I don't mean Bush could have nominated worse; I mean Bush could very well have gotten worse people confirmed.
Everyone knows that the timing of this annoucement was to throw the heat off Rove. This may not even have been Bush's best bet, but the best one he could think of on short notice. I say the Dems screw with the Repubs and confirm this guy immediately. His confirmation almost certainly would happen even if the Dems fight and doing it immediately will throw the Repubs off their game. Then maybe the country can get back to working on how badly Rove damaged national security and what his punishment should be.
Kev, I think this dude's record is pretty much out in the open, and his authored opinions that show how extremely anti-Roe he is are pretty unambiguous. Once someone is appointed to their court, their behavior is pretty much anyone's guess anyway.
I think I'm onboard with Pepper. Confirm him quickly and get it over with and minimize the ability of Fox News to lead their nightly broadcast with stories about obstructionist democrats who want to kill babies and serve them in stew. At least this guy seems qualified legally. If we're going to get a right-winger replacing O'Connor, we might as well get one who doesn't have horns growing out of his head.
I'm also convinced that the Rove story unfortunately isn't going to get us anywhere. You can't beat the devil, and you can't beat Karl Rove. This is an administration off which all allegations of negligence and wrongdoing bounce. If Rove goes down, I won't understand how we got to Iraq in the first place.
The goal isn't for Rove to go down. The President is quite clear that he's willing to break promises to the American people in order to protect Rove. The goal is to get the public to believe that Rove, the Whitehouse, and by extension, Republicans are at best dishonest and at worst, jeopardizing national security. We were close to succeeding too, if you look at the polls that have come out in the last couple of weeks.
yea, Garrett, I know his record is pretty normal and fine. Actually, I started with a mild paragraph of how people need to settle down. I think I was distracted by something or another concerning the religious zeal around here and spiraled into something that had nothing to do with the nominee to the Supreme Court. Sorry about that. Access to the television is getting to me.
Post a Comment