Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts and Roe: Who Does John Roberts Remind Me Of?
National Review Online - Bench Memos ^ | 7/21/2005 | Gerard Bradley

Posted on 07/21/2005 10:30:51 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney

No, not Greg Kinnear or Dan Quayle. Not talking about his looks. Talking about the kind of justice a Justice Roberts would be. Reading through the long profile in today's New York Times confirmed what has sounded right to me all along: Roberts sounds a lot like Justice John Harlan. Harlan was a superb lawyer, possibly the best lawyer to sit on the Court in this century. He was very deeply respectful of the Court and the Constitution, non-doctrinaire but still principled and coherent — unlike almost every other justice who has, like Harlan and evidently like Roberts, eschewed grand theories of interpretation. Harlan of course was with the majority in Griswold. That's the case which (as George and Tubbs just wrote in the dead-tree NR) started us down the primrose path of "privacy" jurisprudence. Harlan did not live long enough to put an oar into Roe's water. It really is anyone's guess what he might have done there. The weakness in Harlan's work — and it is the question about Roberts and Roe — is this: When conventional legal reasoning runs out or is indeterminate, where does one turn? This does not happen everyday on the Court. It happens a lot less, as a matter of fact, than liberals contend. But it happens more often than most conservatives allow. Now, conventional legal reasoning would be enough to do the right thing about abortion — if this were 1973. Even pro-choice lawyers and professors were aghast at the slipshod quality of Blackmun's opinion. (Maybe that means Harlan would have dissented. Who can say for sure; even sober lawyers such as Lewis Powelll went south in Roe.) The question now is reversing Roe. Here I think we should be very, very cautious about where we think a Justice Roberts would go. (Note well: I do not know Roberts at all and write this solely based upon what I have read recently about his judicial philosophy.) Dedication to legal craft, the internal logic of law, the Court's role in our system, respect for precedent — all the things that Roberts clearly does (and should) value are themselves indeterminate when it comes to this question. Probably, they tilt towards the joint opinion by the three Republican in Casey. I think that to reverse Roe today a justice has to dip into a realm which, to date, John Roberts suggests is not within his judicial comfort zone: moral truth. Precedent matters a lot most of the time. But not when we are talking about fundamental matters of justice. To see that abortion is a fundamental injustice requires moral vision, which John Roberts no doubt possesses. But a justice with the requisite moral vision has to have a stable and coherent account, too, of just how moral truth is part of constitutional law. A justice has to have a cogent reply to the standing twentieth-century judicial accusation against what I have just proposed: Judges must never impose their own moral predilections upon the law.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: georgewbush; johngroberts; johnroberts; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Conclusion: (1) Coulter might be right, (2) alot of high-profile pro-Roberts conservatives, like Hugh Hewitt, Jon Adler, Wendy Long and the rest may well learn to regret their cheerleading when it comes to this guy...
1 posted on 07/21/2005 10:30:59 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney


2 posted on 07/21/2005 10:33:48 AM PDT by Red Badger (HURRICANES: God's way of telling you it's time to clean out the freezer...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
I think that to reverse Roe today

I don't think Roe will be reversed with a single blow. I think it will be eviscerated by multiple decisions that leave no inherent federal right to abortion other than situations where the mother's life is in danger, and return the rest to the states. That way SCOTUS can overturn the case while pretending to respect precedent.

3 posted on 07/21/2005 10:34:48 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney

Doubt it.


4 posted on 07/21/2005 10:34:54 AM PDT by nuffsenuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
 No, not Greg Kinnear or Dan Quayle. Not talking about his looks. Talking about the kind of justice a Justice Roberts would be. Reading through the long profile in today's New York Times confirmed what has sounded right to me all along: Roberts sounds a lot like Justice John Harlan.
 
Harlan was a superb lawyer, possibly the best lawyer to sit on the Court in this century. He was very deeply respectful of the Court and the Constitution, non-doctrinaire but still principled and coherent — unlike almost every other justice who has, like Harlan and evidently like Roberts, eschewed grand theories of interpretation. Harlan of course was with the majority in Griswold.
 
That's the case which (as George and Tubbs just wrote in the dead-tree NR) started us down the primrose path of "privacy" jurisprudence. Harlan did not live long enough to put an oar into Roe's water. It really is anyone's guess what he might have done there. The weakness in Harlan's work — and it is the question about Roberts and Roe — is this: When conventional legal reasoning runs out or is indeterminate, where does one turn?
 
This does not happen everyday on the Court. It happens a lot less, as a matter of fact, than liberals contend. But it happens more often than most conservatives allow. Now, conventional legal reasoning would be enough to do the right thing about abortion — if this were 1973. Even pro-choice lawyers and professors were aghast at the slipshod quality of Blackmun's opinion. (Maybe that means Harlan would have dissented. Who can say for sure; even sober lawyers such as Lewis Powelll went south in Roe.)
 
The question now is reversing Roe. Here I think we should be very, very cautious about where we think a Justice Roberts would go. (Note well: I do not know Roberts at all and write this solely based upon what I have read recently about his judicial philosophy.) Dedication to legal craft, the internal logic of law, the Court's role in our system, respect for precedent — all the things that Roberts clearly does (and should) value are themselves indeterminate when it comes to this question.
 
Probably, they tilt towards the joint opinion by the three Republican in Casey. I think that to reverse Roe today a justice has to dip into a realm which, to date, John Roberts suggests is not within his judicial comfort zone: moral truth. Precedent matters a lot most of the time. But not when we are talking about fundamental matters of justice.
 
To see that abortion is a fundamental injustice requires moral vision, which John Roberts no doubt possesses. But a justice with the requisite moral vision has to have a stable and coherent account, too, of just how moral truth is part of constitutional law. A justice has to have a cogent reply to the standing twentieth-century judicial accusation against what I have just proposed: Judges must never impose their own moral predilections upon the law.

5 posted on 07/21/2005 10:34:56 AM PDT by scott7278 (Before I give you the benefit of my reply, I would like to know what we are talking about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney

Yes, Coulter might be right. He is, however, probably an improvement on O'Connor. That doesn't make Bush truthful on the appointment issue, but it might do as O'Connor's replacement, especially since we have no further choice in the matter.


6 posted on 07/21/2005 10:35:01 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
I think that to reverse Roe today a justice has to dip into a realm which, to date, John Roberts suggests is not within his judicial comfort zone: moral truth. Precedent matters a lot most of the time. But not when we are talking about fundamental matters of justice. To see that abortion is a fundamental injustice requires moral vision, which John Roberts no doubt possesses.

Abortion is no more a matter of 'moral vision' than any other law. Overturning Roe does not require anything other than a straightforward reading of the Constitution.

7 posted on 07/21/2005 10:37:46 AM PDT by Sloth (History's greatest monsters: Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Durbin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
Conclusion: (1) Coulter might be right, (2) alot of high-profile pro-Roberts conservatives, like Hugh Hewitt, Jon Adler, Wendy Long and the rest may well learn to regret their cheerleading when it comes to this guy...

Unlike Souter, this man and his wife actually was/is active in the beliefs and views his supporters are saying he holds. Everyone needs to get off the "stealth candidate, we're getting screwed again" pessimist bandwagon.

Souter did not belong to the Federalist Society or hang out with conservatives.

Reagan put Justice Kennedy on the court and Kennedy had a great conservative record for about 10 years and then the wheels fell off.

Renquist was a so-called "stealth candidate" nobody knew anything about...

8 posted on 07/21/2005 10:40:03 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scott7278


This guy? David Hewlett, Stargate Atlantis
9 posted on 07/21/2005 10:40:19 AM PDT by MarkeyD (I really, really loathe liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
People were carping about Bush before knowing who he would nominate. Now they are carping about Roberts before he even takes the stand... Wait till the man screws up then start bashing him.
10 posted on 07/21/2005 10:40:59 AM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scott7278

Sorry, my bad.


11 posted on 07/21/2005 10:41:20 AM PDT by MarkeyD (I really, really loathe liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Well, we will find out in short order when the Court addresses the partial-birth abortion case that headlines its calender next year. Most likely the law will be upheld with O'Connor gone and Robert in. But will Roberts join with Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia with regard to criticizing Roe, Casey and "mother's health" exception? Or will he join Kennedy in writing up some separate concurring opinion which will uphold the law but do nothing to weaken Casey? You might be right but...


12 posted on 07/21/2005 10:42:19 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Yes, Coulter might be right. He is, however, probably an improvement on O'Connor. That doesn't make Bush truthful on the appointment issue, but it might do as O'Connor's replacement, especially since we have no further choice in the matter.

I guess we'll probably have to wait years to get an idea if this is a good appointment. Which makes me wonder if conservatives had questions about Thomas and Scalia when they were nominated or did they have enough of a paper trail that the overwhelming consesus was that they would be conservative originalists. If it's the later, then why didn't W. nominate a "sure thing"?

13 posted on 07/21/2005 10:44:33 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
A justice has to have a cogent reply to the standing twentieth-century judicial accusation against what I have just proposed: Judges must never impose their own moral predilections upon the law.

I think this is what leftist judges do all the time.

14 posted on 07/21/2005 10:46:35 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

Exactly. This "moral vision" crap is just that. Roe is bad law and unconstitutional. Legislators should have "moral vision", judges are supposed to judge the consitutionality of a law, no matter how moral or immoral.


15 posted on 07/21/2005 10:51:06 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

It was the latter with Scalia and Thomas, so good question about W. That's Coulter's point exactly. I gave up on W being "as advertised" back when he signed CFR. So I'm just figuring Roberts can't be worse than O'Connor. Maybe we'll get lucky. Either way, we are getting exactly what we knew we were getting. All of us looked the other way when W hedged and parsed during the 2000 campaign. We thought we was just playing a smart game of political chess. Now that he plays the same game with us, I guess we are just getting what we deserve.


16 posted on 07/21/2005 10:56:09 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
no disrespect intended, but he reminds me just a little bit of fred flintstone. that thought occurred to me as I saw him walking to the podium with W during the press conference.


17 posted on 07/21/2005 10:56:27 AM PDT by smonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

I'll take Levin's opinion over Coulter's all day long when in comes to judicial issues. Ann is a sharp witty bulldog but Levin is far and away more astute in this area.


18 posted on 07/21/2005 10:57:49 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney

Not to disrupt the party but as we saw with the case involving eminent domain there are more concerns than just Roe v Wade.... and I might add Is the glass half empty or half full?


19 posted on 07/21/2005 11:00:41 AM PDT by woofie (I Predict...... Dr. Neil Clark Warren will someday kill his wife and stop being pleasant to others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I don't think Roe will be reversed with a single blow. I think it will be eviscerated by multiple decisions that leave no inherent federal right to abortion other than situations where the mother's life is in danger, and return the rest to the states. That way SCOTUS can overturn the case while pretending to respect precedent.

I think you are right.
You can't take away a 'right' that a substantial minority of the country approves of without civil disobedience and a possible backlash unless you sneak up on it.

SO9

20 posted on 07/21/2005 11:06:55 AM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I totally agree...we didn't get here overnight, will not get there overnight. It's only a matter of time.

I think John Roberts will be an outstanding jurist for conservative America.

21 posted on 07/21/2005 11:11:59 AM PDT by shield (The Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God!!!! by Dr. H. Ross, Astrophysicist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney

There were two Supreme Court Justices named John Marshall Harlan.

The first served on the court from 1877 to 1911, and wrote a brilliant dissent on the Plessy v. Ferguson case which as you might recall established "seperate but equal" racial segregation as the law of the land. Harlan's lone voice of dissent on the Supreme Court was a brilliant one, and his opinion led the court in 1954 to overturn legalized segregation in Brown v. Board of Education.

The second Justice Harlan, the first Justice Harlan's grandson, who was named for his grandfather, is more than likely the man this article is referring to. He served on the court from 1955 until 1971 and may have joined White and Rehnquist in dissenting from the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, but that is just speculation.


22 posted on 07/21/2005 11:15:36 AM PDT by BaBaStooey (Ethiopia: The New Happiest Place on Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smonk

Funny. He looks to me like a younger, buffer version of Frank Burns from MASH.
He's a good-looking man. Not great but nice in a son-in-law sort of way. And you can't fault that resume. I'm content. Pending some court decisions...


23 posted on 07/21/2005 11:24:28 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

do you think that Thomas, got a conservative pass? Not likely.


24 posted on 07/21/2005 11:25:35 AM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Souter did not belong to the Federalist Society

I'm hopeful that Roberts will be an improvement over O'Connor. However, according to this Washington Post article, John G. Roberts Jr. has never been a member of the Federalist Society, despite widespread reports that he did belong.

25 posted on 07/21/2005 11:26:10 AM PDT by Catholic and Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter

Roberts is a Souter. Who else would a liberal Republican like Bush nominate? George H. W. Bush set the precedent. Bush isn't pro-life anyway, never has been. He has always supported the "but" position, as in against abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or life of mother. He also allowed federal funding on destroyed stem cell lines.

Don't you even wonder why the liberals are rolling over after preparing for "war" early on?


26 posted on 07/21/2005 11:29:43 AM PDT by sam_whiskey (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
To all the people on our side who are doubting judge Roberts, please go ahead and join the left to prevent his confirmation. How does the this sound guys? What the hell do you want guys? Someone who proclaims that once he is a judge he will overturn Roe vs. Wade? Do you know that there is no way he will be confirmed if he says so. In fact he will be violating his judicial ethics if he said that he want to overturn Roe Vs. Wade before he hear any case in front of him as judge.

read this and learn how to shut up before you open your mouth and spew doom and gloom, and lies:

Why does NCJW (Rabid left wing group) oppose John Roberts' nomination?

While serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the Bush Administration, Roberts argued for the gag rule in Rust v. Sullivan (1991), by which the federal government barred doctors working in family planning programs receiving federal funds from even discussing abortion options with patients. The brief also argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided – a question not even posed in the case. The Supreme Court upheld the gag rule on the narrower ground that the rule itself was not unconstitutional.

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts also argued in an amicus curiae brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993) that protesters from Operation Rescue and six other individuals who blocked access to reproductive health care clinics did not discriminate against women, even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion. The year after the Supreme Court endorsed this narrow interpretation, Congress enacted the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) to protect women and health care providers from violence, clinic blockades, and harassment.

Roberts also co-authored an amicus brief for the administration in Lee v. Weisman (1992) in support of letting public high schools include religious activities in their graduation programs. In that case, the court ruled against the government.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447277/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1447277/posts

27 posted on 07/21/2005 11:30:46 AM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

eyes look like the runaway bride. Maybe the runaway justice?


28 posted on 07/21/2005 11:32:00 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks

Wide-eyed and bush-y tailed?.....


29 posted on 07/21/2005 11:34:15 AM PDT by Red Badger (HURRICANES: God's way of telling you it's time to clean out the freezer...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sam_whiskey
Don't you even wonder why the liberals are rolling over after preparing for "war" early on?

NARAL is rolling over? It's been less than two days? Come on. The reason why you haven't heard as much as YOU want is probably because Bush caught them all off guard as they were certain he was going to appoint a minority or woman or both.

Please, the RATs will be screaming bloody murder soon enough. Hopefully the same crowd will not be a bunch of hypocrites and ask that they shut up about Roberts.

30 posted on 07/21/2005 11:34:15 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Catholic and Conservative
I'm confident that Roberts will be an improvement over O'Connor. Roberts did speak at the Federalist Society but more important than that check out the company he keeps and his family life. I believe his wife was either the head or affiliated with Feminists for Life.
31 posted on 07/21/2005 11:36:54 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

A quick point. In those briefs Roberts makes ample use of the word "We". WE believe Roe was wrongly decided, etc., etc. He was a lawyer arguing for a client...


32 posted on 07/21/2005 11:38:48 AM PDT by sam_whiskey (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sam_whiskey
If he did not personally agree with it he would not have argue it.
33 posted on 07/21/2005 11:42:54 AM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
I think that to reverse Roe today a justice has to dip into a realm which, to date, John Roberts suggests is not within his judicial comfort zone: moral truth. Precedent matters a lot most of the time. But not when we are talking about fundamental matters of justice. To see that abortion is a fundamental injustice requires moral vision, which John Roberts no doubt possesses. But a justice with the requisite moral vision has to have a stable and coherent account, too, of just how moral truth is part of constitutional law. A justice has to have a cogent reply to the standing twentieth-century judicial accusation against what I have just proposed: Judges must never impose their own moral predilections upon the law.

Wonderful...In other words, this is not a Scalia-like justice and we've been betrayed once again by a Republican President if this guy is right.

34 posted on 07/21/2005 11:43:21 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
Roberts' wife is a former executive vice-president of Feminists for Life. Their 2 children are adopted. It looks to me like the family has strong moral foundations.

-Michael McCullough

Stingray blogsite

35 posted on 07/21/2005 11:50:46 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
With a viewpoint like that, I assume you don't think Janice Rodgers Brown should be a judge, since she has written extensively about her opinions on many matters.

All some of us are trying to say is, is that we wish we had a better feel for where this guy stands on the issues which matter to us.

I don't need him to specifically say "if appointed I will do everything in my power to overturn Roe"... although that would be nice :)

I would settle for some writings he has made in the past which call into question the legal basis behind roe.

Most legal scholars agree that roe was a travesty, even those who agree with the pro-choice movement.
36 posted on 07/21/2005 11:55:09 AM PDT by republican2005
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney

he looks like Putin


37 posted on 07/21/2005 12:11:06 PM PDT by jw777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney; jveritas; sam_whiskey; dirtboy

Again:

Roberts argued for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. It is possible that he made that argument even though he disagreed with it, but it isn't likely, it seems to me.

His wife is pro-life. Can you imagine her chagrin if he were to have a chance to be the 5th vote (along with Thomas, Scalia, and the replacements of Rehnq and Stevens) and he ended up voting with Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy and Breyer? I honestly can't imagine it.


38 posted on 07/21/2005 12:21:05 PM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Most of these people are anti-Republican anti-Bush and they think no one realizes it.

Perhaps it would have been better had they, themselves, been "stealth" candidates and not outted themselves in opposition of everything in the last five years.

They are the minority opinion. They are becoming as much of a joke as the Liberals, because you know what they'll say before they open their mouths. Whereas the people supporting Roberts did NOT jump in the air when speculation was on Clements. These people did, however release the same talking points on her they have used on Roberts. They had the form ready, they only needed the name.


39 posted on 07/21/2005 12:32:37 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: smonk

He looks like Larry Hageman (I dream of Jeannie; Dallas).


40 posted on 07/21/2005 12:59:29 PM PDT by I. Ben Hurt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

They are a minority, a tiny one in fact, however in their own delusional minds they think they represent a vast majority of conservatives.


41 posted on 07/21/2005 1:01:13 PM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney

If Roberts is good enough for Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, then he's good enough for me. Those two have a great understanding of the issue, and some personal experience with the candidate himself.


42 posted on 07/21/2005 1:03:17 PM PDT by Deo et Patria (Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

Agreed.

IMO, if they really wish to know who Robert's is, and I have hesitated to state this because I know their agenda, Roberts is G.W.B. had he chosen a career in law rather than drifted a few years then chosen the life of a politician where sometimes concessions are made in interest of a larger goal.

This statement of course will send them if they latch onto it into hysteria bringing up CFR. Except G.W.B. is a politician, he calculated the Court would overturn, it was a mistake but not an example of G.W.'s thought on the matter absent political calculations.

Robert's is not Rehnquist. He is not Thomas. He is not O'Connor. He is not Stevens. He is not Souter. He is not Scalia. He is representative of G.W.B's view of the Court in the American process. Those that hate G.W. will be furious. Those that have trust in the President's vision of the Court comforted.

Nor is he his father. G.W.B. is not the sort to leave this to chance. He is 100% certain in his judgement of this man or he would not have nominated him.


43 posted on 07/21/2005 1:18:54 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

Great post.


44 posted on 07/21/2005 2:30:00 PM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Roe could be overturned instantly by simply recognizing that Roe erred in calling the fetus a 'potential life' instead of what it was: human life.

There are other ways to overturn Roe. Maybe 50 ways to do so. Incremental chipping away is not the way to go with Roe.

It is scary indeed that we aren't even sure that Roberts would overturn the worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy v Ferguson. But not as scary as the fact that - EVEN IF HE JOINED SCALIA, THOMAS AND REHNQUIST - there is a court majority left to uphold it.


45 posted on 07/21/2005 3:54:20 PM PDT by WOSG (Liberalism is wrong, it's just the Liberals don't know it yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sam_whiskey

"Roberts is a Souter. Who else would a liberal Republican like Bush nominate? George H. W. Bush set the precedent. Bush isn't pro-life anyway, never has been. He has always supported the "but" position, as in against abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or life of mother. He also allowed federal funding on destroyed stem cell lines."

Okay ... This gets my vote for dumbest post of the day.


46 posted on 07/21/2005 3:55:31 PM PDT by WOSG (Liberalism is wrong, it's just the Liberals don't know it yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

For the record, Thomas was *NOT* a sure thing.
He was a protoge of Senator Danforth, a nice man and one of the more 'wobbly' Senators out there.

We had no reason to expect Thomas to be as good as he is, and no reason to expect Kennedy to be as bad as he is ... maybe its the confrimation process that did it. Maybe Thomas' independent streak helps him stay away from the DC Kool-Aid.

Frankly, Roberts is a bit more of a sure thing, because so many other conservatives know him personally.


47 posted on 07/21/2005 3:59:16 PM PDT by WOSG (Liberalism is wrong, it's just the Liberals don't know it yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
"Who Does John Roberts Remind Me Of?"

An exhibit at Madam Tusauds?

A Stepford Judge?

A Pod Person from the planet Judas?

48 posted on 07/21/2005 4:29:04 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_whiskey
George H. W. Bush set the precedent.

Yeah, gave us that other well-known left-winger Thomas too!

49 posted on 07/21/2005 4:43:46 PM PDT by Yankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BaghdadBarney
Who does John Roberts remind me of?

He looks like Lee Atwater.

50 posted on 07/21/2005 5:00:35 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson