Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 07/20/2005 View Tue 07/19/2005 View Mon 07/18/2005 View Sun 07/17/2005 View Sat 07/16/2005 View Fri 07/15/2005 View Thu 07/14/2005
1
2005-07-20 Home Front: Politix
John Roberts being attacked - from the right and left
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-20 12:16|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 if both the far right and far left don't like him, then he has my vote.
Posted by 2b 2005-07-20 12:26||   2005-07-20 12:26|| Front Page Top

#2 OOOOO, just found something kewl about Roberts.

“Friends of the court” supporting the terrorist included dozens of law professors, “305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians,” “Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Amhad Sulayman Al Bahlui,” “Military Law Practitioners and Academicians,” “National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,” “Human Rights First,” “General Merrill A. McPeak,” “People for the American Way,” “The World Organization for Human Rights USA,” “Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights”—and, worst of all, the prestigious “Association of the Bar of the City of New York.”



Despite this array of “friends,” the Court of Appeals panel—one of whom was John G. Roberts, Jr., President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court—reversed Judge Robertson, rejecting his conclusion that Hamdan was covered by the Geneva Convention, which could be enforced in a United States federal court. Robertson had conveniently ignored the Supreme Court precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager (which the current liberal Court majority massaged, in order to reach its conclusion in Rasul), which held that the Geneva Convention, a compact between governments, was not judicially enforceable in a private lawsuit. Period!

He was one of the justices that struck down the liberal view that the people in club Gitmo have a right to be tried as americans.
This WILL be going to the SCOTUS and guess who might be sitting on the bench then?
BREWHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-20 12:36||   2005-07-20 12:36|| Front Page Top

#3 Ni-i-i-ice...
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2005-07-20 12:39||   2005-07-20 12:39|| Front Page Top

#4 Annie C. You are off the reservation on this one...
Posted by BigEd 2005-07-20 12:44||   2005-07-20 12:44|| Front Page Top

#5 LOL the real reason Bush was smirking when introducing him in the press conference
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-20 13:03||   2005-07-20 13:03|| Front Page Top

#6 2b: Is it just me? Because it looks like he's scaring his sister?
Posted by BigEd 2005-07-20 13:17||   2005-07-20 13:17|| Front Page Top

#7 This WILL be going to the SCOTUS and guess who might be sitting on the bench then?

Sadly, I think he'd have to sit that case out if he was involved in the decision in a lower court.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-20 13:26|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-20 13:26|| Front Page Top

#8 Why, Robert?

Not challenging, just curious.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2005-07-20 13:43||   2005-07-20 13:43|| Front Page Top

#9 IANAL, but he'd basically be sitting in review of his own decision. I'd think there's a conflict of interest there. Lawyers may have a different idea, though.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2005-07-20 13:48|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2005-07-20 13:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
Ann, he's a smart lawyer. That means he thinks before engaging his mouth. He may have said controversial things, but not on tape or in print. People with a long paper trail tend to be politicians, commentators and university professors. If you are not in that group, you don't have a record that can be used against you.
Posted by Steve">Steve  2005-07-20 14:12||   2005-07-20 14:12|| Front Page Top

23:59 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:52 jules 2
23:49 .com
23:41 bigjim-ky
23:41 jules 2
23:36 macofromoc
23:34 bigjim-ky
23:34 Death B4 Dhimmi
23:32 Phil Fraering
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:20 Alaska Paul
23:11 AzCat
23:00 Alaska Paul
22:59 Alaska Paul
22:58 Kalle (kafir forever)
22:51 ed
22:48 ed
22:48 Alaska Paul
22:44 .com
22:44 Alaska Paul
22:42 Phil Fraering
22:42 Kalle (kafir forever)
22:41 Stephen
22:39 Phil Fraering









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com