Skip to comments.Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law (Flashback: NYT praises... John Roberts)
Posted on 07/01/2012 8:22:33 AM PDT by Qbert
WASHINGTON, July 20 - He is the son of a company man, and he has lived a loyalist's life. His teachers remember him as the brightest of boys, but his classmates say he never lorded it over them. He was always conservative, but not doctrinaire. He was raised and remains a practicing Roman Catholic who declines, friends say, to wear his faith on his sleeve.
"I would not hew to a particular 'school' of interpretation," he added, "but would follow the approach or approaches that seemed most suited in the particular case to correctly discerning the meaning of the provision at issue."
Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal professor of constitutional law at Harvard, remembers Judge Roberts as a student there and has kept in touch with him over the years. He does not recall Judge Roberts as a political conservative when he studied there.
"He's conservative in manner and conservative in approach," Mr. Tribe said. "He's a person who is cautious and careful, that's true...
"When I look at the people who were his friends, and who are his friends, there's not a political component to it that I can detect," said Charles E. Davidow, another law school classmate who roomed with him when they were both clerking, for separate judges, in New York.
Judge Roberts is indisputably a Republican: He advised Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida during the 2000 presidential vote recount; gave $1,000 to George W. Bush that year; and contributed about $2,700 to various Republican candidates over the years. But he has given more - almost $7,500 - to his law firm's political action committee, which supports Democrats and Republicans in roughly equal measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I think I’m going to puke. The freedom of a nation tossed away so a traitor could get the kisses of liars.
Wouldn’t it be fun to see the piece The NYT had written and ready to run had Roberts ruled against CastroCare?
Yep. John Roberts gave his rubber stamp to the biggest deception in our nation’s history.
Looking back, it seems Roberts was practically unvetted, at least from a conservative point-of-view. Some interesting facts from Wikipedia:
1. As an attorney, he did behind the scenes pro bono work for gay rights activists.
2. Was a Deputy Solicitor in GHWB administration, and GHWB nominated Roberts for a Court of Appeals in 1992, but no Senate vote was held and the nomination expired with Bush 41’s term.
3. In 2001, W nominated Roberts for another CoA court seat and he was confirmed eventually in 2003.
4. Nominated to replace O’Connor in 2005, but nomination changed to replace CJ Rehnquist as CJ when Rehnquist died that same year.
It’s interesting that the Bushes had been trying to get Roberts on a federal court since 1992, and when it failed in 1992, W nominated him again during his first year in office. The Bushes wanted Roberts on a federal court. And two years later, W nominated him for the Supreme Court, and for CJ even before he’d made it to the court as an associate justice.
Roberts was the Bushes main man for the federal court system, whatever that might have meant.
Whatever else he might be, he’s a damned traitor to the Constitution, and an obsequious toady to leftism.
Sounds like the Roberts version of
“Dreams of my Father”. Funny how after
all the hype, he turned out to a liberal
snake in the grass ringer. After Harriet Miers,
it’s hard to argue that Bush didn’t know.
I expect no different from Romney. The least we
can hope for is to keep the house.
Yes, it is very interesting. It suggests that Roberts might have had an FBI file as part of that vetting process, which could have been pilfered by the Clinton White House in "Filegate" back in 1993. (Recall that those stolen files were compiled on Bush 41 people as part of the standard vetting process for their appointments.) So what might have been in Roberts' FBI file is anyone's guess, and, if his was among those involved in "Filegate," content from that file could have been made available to today's Washington Democrats for blackmail purposes.
Just intuitive speculation, of course. We'll probably never know for sure.
If you attribute that to Wikipedia, I would question the accuracy. Not everything you read in Wikipedia is true; remember it's based on information submitted by the "membership," and they lean left.
My guess is that Roberts, as a devout Catholic, would probably not have done that work, and if he did it, very much "behind the scenes." However, if that is factual, it might have wound up in his FBI file (See my post # 8).
There seem to be many sources one could review and see various takes on this and other questions:
I’m surprised Roberts voted the right way up until now.
With Kennedy joining the liberals so often, Roberts didn't have to. And with Roberts' apparently late switch on this major ruling, and his determination to let Obamacare stand, his motives will always be suspect in the future.
Thanks for the ping!