Analysis: Roberts a Scalia/Thomas clone?

The Pittsburgh Post Gazette ^ | September 18, 2005 | Michael McGough

[mcg2000]

WASHINGTON -- Long before John G. Roberts Jr. testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, liberal groups and some Democratic senators were suspicious of the chief justice nominee because of President Bush's high praise for the Supreme Court's two most conservative members, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

After Roberts' hearings, some liberal groups said they still worry that Roberts will follow in the judicial footsteps of Scalia and Thomas. "While Roberts wanted to give the impression he respected the right to privacy and the precedent of Roe v. Wade, his answers look dangerously similar to the responses Clarence Thomas gave senators during his confirmation hearings 14 years ago," said NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Thomas also gave grandiose remarks about respecting precedent and the right to privacy during his confirmation hearings. One year later, Justice Thomas voted to overturn Roe v. Wade."

[JimDingle]

We can only hope he is like Scalia or Thomas and not like Souter.

[Erik Latranyi]

To consider what NARAL wants in Supreme Court nominees is completely irrelevant and a demonstration of a mental disorder.

The MSM would never ask the NRA about Ruth Ginsburg.

[NCSteve]

...and made it clear that believing a precedent was wrongly decided in the first place is not sufficient reason to repudiate it.

Lord, save us from lawyers! What kind of BS is that? Oh no, we wouldn't want to fix something that was wrongly done, why that might even open the door for people to believe the Supreme Court is less than divine. Why some people might even begin to think that the justices are fallible.

Oh yeah, </sarcasm>

[JimDingle]

NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood etc. Have brainwashed the American public so much into thinking that if Roe V Wade is over turned it means all abortions are illegal. They don't want you to know that all it would do is make abortion a state issue instead of a federal one.

Also if the court couldn't review it self Brown V Board of Eduaction never would have happened.

[rastus macgill]

He might make Souter seem like Thomas or Scalia.

[JimDingle]

That would be another fear of mine. My biggest concerns are that of Roe V Wade, Eminent Domain, and the current attack of Christianity.

[wmileo]

"We can only hope he is like Scalia or Thomas and not like Souter"

While I echo your sympathies, there is reason to believe he will be nothing like Souter. John Roberts is a husband and a family man who went out of his way to become a parent by adopting children. Souter was a recluse who lived with his mother. Souter was recommended to Bush 41 for the court by two of his fellow New Hampshire Residents, Warren Rudman (grandstanding, self-promoting political thorn to both Presidents Bush and Reagan) and John Sannuni (desperate to have anyone from his state on the Supreme Court). Roberts on the other hand was recommended to the court by a trusted group of loyalist to the President who also happened to be subject matter experts on judicial qualifications. Bush 43 was not going to make the same mistake as his father. Be sure of these three thing. First Roberts will be confirmed. Large number of Democrats will try to block him. These Democrats will look (as they already have)ridiculous doing it.

[cksharks]

I hope so.

[JimDingle]

I did not know he adopted a child. From what I know strong Christian families tend to be the ones who adopt children. I have only been able to watch a little bit of the hearings (As I can't stand Leahy and Kennedy rambling on about nothing) he sounds like a good man but the bench can change a person.

[gpapa]

Judge Roberts is a devout Catholic. And his wife once headed a pro-life organization.

[youthgonewild]

Roberts will be every bit the activist conservative Scalia and Thomas are. I think everyone fretting about is Souter-shocked.

[wmileo]

The adoption of his two children from South America became an issue raised by the NY TIMES within the first few days after his nomination was announced. It seems that the Times was snooping around trying to fine some dirt on the adoption of these children by the Roberts family. They were actually implying that because he is a rich white guy, he jumped to the top of the list to adopt two white children from a continent with an abundance of non white children available for adoption. Even a number of Democrats ( thought few in number) thought that was stooping to a low level. That is the NY TIMES for you. They boldly go where no slime has ever gone before just to make a point.