|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 20, 2005 15:13:32 GMT -5
Ya'lls thoughts on John Roberts...
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jul 20, 2005 18:58:50 GMT -5
Can't really tell yet although his environmental briefs and rulings seem anti people and earth? We Catholics run the range. I hope he recognizes he represents all the people who are represented by the constitution and not only business interests. The fact he worked for Rehnquist scares me.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 20, 2005 20:17:43 GMT -5
I don't know a lot about him either. What do you mean about his environmental policies being anti-people and anti-earth? What environmental policies has he ruled on...just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jul 21, 2005 8:20:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by scrap on Jul 21, 2005 9:51:56 GMT -5
The article cites a few cases in which Roberts was lead council for the Government arguing against Wildlife and the environment protections.
It also states he has defended these same positions in other cases.
I have to assume he hasn't risen this far in his career by being wishy washy so he must think out his positions on a case by case basis which in my opinion is the type of person one would want sitting on the Supreme Court.
I haven't read enough about him yet to be won over.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 21, 2005 15:17:36 GMT -5
Liberals also came out in force against the nominations of Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter for no other reason than the fact that they were nominated by Republican presidents. In hindsight, those three I just mentioned have evolved into three of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court. You never know, in the years to follow you may come to admire Roberts and I may come to despise him. Using the precedents of the three justices I just mentioned, we all should probably give him some time before we jump to conclusions about what decisions he will make while on the court. I read this article from Ann Coulter today, and what she said might surprise you...a good read indeed. www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050721.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Jul 21, 2005 17:37:51 GMT -5
I don't like him. It's still early, but I pretty much question any move by the Bush family. The same points Coulter made came up in my mind when I heard of his nomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jul 22, 2005 15:30:25 GMT -5
Anne is the queen of exaggerations and poor logic. You guys are the party of welfare queens because Roberts argued once for fairness. Too much. It must be nice to be so simpleminded.
"But now apparently Republicans want to pretend it's the party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too."
Unless I am mistaken the majority of Americans are for individual rights: most support choice, gays, and pornography - how would we get through our wives menopause without it - but Anne in her infinite idiocy adds criminal rights and property rights - huh didn't her heroes just cave in to corporate power?
"As I've said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals' rights and property rights – liberals wouldn't need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented "constitutional" rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It's always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy and atheism, and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination. "
Of course if there were logic in her she wouldn't be Anne. I'm wondering where sodomy comes in here as the jails would be overflowing lol. I also disagree that most Americans are her brand of conservative because I do not feel most Americans would associate with her narrow mindedness assuming she is even representative of a conservative.
Bork and Scalia, these are the bad guys to liberals as they are ideologues and not judges. The post above forgets this person is called on to be Solomon not a narrow minded rubber stamp.
It is a paradox that Roberts is annoying some on both sides; I guess that means he must be a good guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Jul 22, 2005 16:11:59 GMT -5
most support choice, gays, and pornography - how would we get through our wives menopause without it - Gay porn? Wow! You're more screwed up than I thought. To dismiss Scalia as an ideologue shows true simplemindedness as everyone with half a brain, including Harry Reid, concede that he is a brilliant legal mind. |
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jul 25, 2005 11:50:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian on Jul 25, 2005 12:34:18 GMT -5
Midcan, Kmart called, your sense of humor is in. I'll let your cite of stupidevilbastard.com as a means of discrediting Scalia's legal mind speak for itself... |
|
|
|
Post by Barney on Jul 26, 2005 15:04:26 GMT -5
Can you back this up?
I think this is a major assumption on your part... and you back it up by quoting Coulter (i'm guessing) where she says that the majority doesn't support this idea. The last 2 Presidential elections is great supporting evidence for Coulters statement.
I'd like to see your proof of your assertion.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 26, 2005 15:57:39 GMT -5
If most Americans supported abortion, gay marriage, and believed the war in Iraq was the "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time", John Kerry would be in the White House.
|
|
|
|
Post by midcan5 on Jul 26, 2005 18:33:03 GMT -5
Link didn't work, Scalia's comment is below:
"In McCreary County vs. ACLU of Kentucky, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses in two Kentucky counties. Scalia, in an apoplectic dissent, made a case for a civil religion. He claimed the founders intended for government to endorse a belief in a single, personal God who is directly engaged in the affairs of men.
“With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief,” Scalia wrote, “it is entirely clear from our nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists."
My take isn't Scalia's take so brilliance must be in the mind of the beholder as ideologue is but wait he is proposing something I am not...so who's the...
My reference is that most support choice, gays, and pornography - there may be limits here but Americans on the whole support Roe v Wade decision, Gays are on TV and in all families, sorta hard to not accept, and as I said all red blooded America men like porn - and if you doubt any of this look again folks.
And TNR fear and stupidity are great motivators read some history.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 26, 2005 20:33:14 GMT -5
Fear and stupidity?
Why don't you just throw in the word "bigot", another liberal buzz word, for good measure?
What in my post gave you the impresssion that I was fearful or stupid? I only pointed out a fact.
Am I stupid because I don't watch pornos? Do only smart people watch porno?
If you need porn to help you through your marriage then perhaps your marriage needs work....
How in the hell did our grandparents ever stay married so long without porn to get them through the tough times?
How does the fact that I disagree with abortion make me stupid? Please explain to me why holding that opinion makes me an idiot.
|
|
