John Roberts Appointed to Supreme Court

[Teri-K]

I'm waitingggg!

Poor Weeks. Here's to you holding your breath and turning blue.

[Wombat]

..... and that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional when applied to real estate developers.

Since when have property developers been an endangered species?

Seriously, there was a really hilarious development here this week that relates to this. Quite a lot of people bought land on the outskirts of Sydney that was zoned for farming or preservation on the assumption that, with the expansion of the city, it would be rezoned residential and that they could clean up by subdividing. This week, new zoning decisions were announced. Some areas where changed; some remained unchanged. Those whose areas were unchanged were irate. They even held a public meeting to protest and asked the government for compensation. No area previously zoned residential was changed.

Now this completely banjaxed me. This is property speculation. You buy in the hope of making a profit. If you are unlucky, you lose. That's exactly what speculation is. Failed businesses can't go to the government asking to be compensated for their bad luck or judgment. People were saying things like this—this is my superannuation they are taking away, and, I just want to be paid what my property is worth. Obviously, they hadn't been told by the speculators who sold to them that they were gambling. Well, why should they have been told. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Lorenzo]

(wait no longer Weeks)

SAVE OUR COURTS
Judge John Roberts an Unsuitable Choice for Supreme Court Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 19, 2005

Ted Miller
202.973.3032
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/nomin ... m?id=33666

Washington, DC - NARAL Pro-Choice America, the nation's leading advocate for personal privacy and a woman's right to choose, has announced that it will oppose Judge John Roberts, President Bush's nominee for Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, is a divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts, rather than a unifier Americans could trust to preserve our personal freedoms like the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose.

"Americans deserve a nominee who respects this country's culture of freedom and personal responsibility, and who understands the profound effect his decisions have on our everyday lives," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade. President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we, and the 65% of Americans who support Roe, are ready for the battle ahead."

Some of the lowlights of Judge Robert's background include:

• As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that "[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.... [T]he 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."
  
  
  In Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.
  
  
  Roberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, filed a "friend of the court" brief for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the protesters' behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion.
  
  
  The Court was so accustomed to the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Roberts's oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice Asked, "Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?" He responded, "No, your honor, the issue doesn't even come up." To this the justice said, "Well, that hasn't prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases."

[Flyingcursor]

Pretty much down-the-line conservative, highly regarded, terrific guy, excellent legal mind. My internet search so far isn't finding anything on the death penalty for him,

But he hasn't even been accused of a crime!!!

[jbarter]

Pretty much down-the-line conservative, highly regarded, terrific guy, excellent legal mind. My internet search so far isn't finding anything on the death penalty for him,

But he hasn't even been accused of a crime!!!

But I thought someone said he was conservative?

[GaryKelly]

Julia Roberts might've been a more popular choice.

[peeplj]

I hope the nomination can successfully be blocked.

We need someone centrist, not someone from the far right on the Supreme Court. An unbalanced Court can do the country far more harm in a much longer-lasting way than can an incompetent president.

--James

[missy]

James wrote:
"We need someone centrist"

While I agree with you - in principle - do you think that a true "centrist" has any hope of actually winning approval of the Congress?
I think ALL judges should be non-partisant and "centrist" - but it doesn't seem that like will ever happen.

[Dale]

Pretty much down-the-line conservative, highly regarded, terrific guy, excellent legal mind. My internet search so far isn't finding anything on the death penalty for him,

But he hasn't even been accused of a crime!!!

Ah. Caught in an egregious misapplication of language. One that would be worthy of the President. I'm going now to punish myself.

[TomB]

The commentary I'm hearing is that the man is extremely well liked, extremely well respected and very "confirmable." He was confirmed unanimously when he was appointed to the appelate court. "Everybody likes him." "He has no enemies." "He's a very warm, humble, and likeable person." "He's the cream of the cream of the legal profession."

I believe it was a statesmanly choice, and I hope the reaction across the political spectrum will, for the most part, be statesmanly.

Best wishes,
Jerry

I could be wront, but I think he had 3 votes against him during his nomination to the Appeals court, no? Didn't a senator from NY vote against him?

Tom

[TomB]

I hope the nomination can successfully be blocked.

We need someone centrist, not someone from the far right on the Supreme Court. An unbalanced Court can do the country far more harm in a much longer-lasting way than can an incompetent president.

--James

That isn't going to happen. Most folks don't seem to be supporting centrist politics these days. The centrist movement in the Democractic Party has fallen out of favor, and I'm not aware of any large centrist movement in the Republican Party, either.

Tom

[Dale]

From all I can tell so far, he ought to be nominated. I've always agreed with the school o' thought that the Senate ought to examine a nominee's credentials to make certain the candidate is qualified and also rule out any extremist positions. He's a consistent, down-the-line conservative, but I sure haven't seen any radical positions on anything. I don't think it's fair or right to try to squeeze out of these people how they might vote on hypothetical cases.

[TomB]

From all I can tell so far, he ought to be nominated. I've always agreed with the school o' thought that the Senate ought to examine a nominee's credentials to make certain the candidate is qualified and also rule out any extremist positions. He's a consistent, down-the-line conservative, but I sure haven't seen any radical positions on anything. I don't think it's fair or right to try to squeeze out of these people how they might vote on hypothetical cases.

Exactly correct. The confirmation process has become way too political.

Tom

[TomB]

Lorenzo: I love the subject of your Thread.

Roberts "appointed" the the Supreme Court. I guess we know where you stan, eh?

All the Best, Tom

[jbarter]

I hope the nomination can successfully be blocked.

We need someone centrist, not someone from the far right on the Supreme Court. An unbalanced Court can do the country far more harm in a much longer-lasting way than can an incompetent president.

--James

That isn't going to happen. Most folks don't seem to be supporting centrist politics these days. The centrist movement in the Democractic Party has fallen out of favor, and I'm not aware of any large centrist movement in the Republican Party, either.

Tom

What's needed now is a new party. How about the Centrist and Friendly Party (or C&F for short).