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
President Bush picks Judge John Roberts for SCOTUS
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 Barbara Skolaut 2005-07-20 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Judging (pun intended) from the moon battery reaction from the left I would have to say that Roberts was a good pick. Caught some yahoo on MSNBC (surfing) who said "Maybe the Democrats should let him by, he will overturn roe/wade, and then they will reap the backlash on the right." The left never ceases to amaze me with their power to stick to a single issue: Killing babies.
Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge  2005-07-20 10:23||   2005-07-20 10:23|| Front Page Top

#2 He certainly appears to be a solid choice as he'll replace a wishy-washy centrist vote with a reliably conservative one on the issues that really matter. That said I'm not certain that the social conservatives will love him when it's all said and done.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-20 10:29||   2005-07-20 10:29|| Front Page Top

#3 What evidence do we have that he is "reliably" conservative? He gets along swell at Georgetown cocktail parties?
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-20 10:31||   2005-07-20 10:31|| Front Page Top

#4 mrs d. Lol!
Posted by 2b 2005-07-20 10:43||   2005-07-20 10:43|| Front Page Top

#5 What gets me about the whole abortion issue is that even if he votes against Roe v. Wade, it won't be overturned. The S.C.'s ruled before (in the early 1990s) reaffirming Roe v. Wade by a 6-3 margin, so this'll only shrink it to 5-4 ruling in favor (assuming the other justices vote the way they did in the 90's). The things that MIGHT get overturned with him on board are the restrictions on abortion (e.g. Partial Birth abortion Ban; State laws on parental notification, etc.), which the S.C. have voted against on a 5-4 ruling (thus, he would overturn it to 5-4 ruling in favor of these restrictions). Discussing last night with some buddies, and as 3-d imaging, healthcare for premies, etc. gets better and better, we might just see Roe v. Wade overturned. However, it won't be with this court (even with Roberts). And, finally still, EVEN if Roe v. Wade's overturned, it'll kick back to State laws...you think the "enlightened" states (e.g. Massachusetts, Vermont, maybe N.Y., and even California) will BAN abortion? Think again.
Posted by BA">BA  2005-07-20 10:54||   2005-07-20 10:54|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, CS, I think the far left would have been protesting another a clone of O'Connor, or just about anyone the President would have been willing to nominate.

However, the conspirators over at Voloch seem to think well of him. I'm cautiously optimistic. We've been burned so many times, but perhaps Lucy won't pull away the football this time.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal  2005-07-20 10:58|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]  2005-07-20 10:58|| Front Page Top

#7 

Remember the last time we had someone who was in authorty had a son who danced....

Roberts may actually be pretty good...

Of course his son will have to be watched carefully {snicker}
Posted by BigEd 2005-07-20 11:25||   2005-07-20 11:25|| Front Page Top

#8 other issues could weigh larger: should Gitmo terrorists have appeal rights, are illegals entitled to all US protections intended for citizens...

I believe he's a good pick from all I've heard
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-20 11:28||   2005-07-20 11:28|| Front Page Top

#9 Mrs. D IMHO his longtime association with the Federalist Society is a very clear indication of his possession of solid small government conservative credentials. IMHO those are the most important kind. On the social side, his wife's involvement with Feminists for Life is also a good indication of the sort of family values present in the Roberts' home. Slam dunk sure thing for conservatives? Nope, but I think those of us who're primarily economic / small-government conservatives will be very happy while the social conservatives may or may not be.
Posted by AzCat 2005-07-20 12:20||   2005-07-20 12:20|| Front Page Top

#10 soo...whose kid danced?
Posted by 2b 2005-07-20 12:24||   2005-07-20 12:24|| Front Page Top

#11 Big Ed, Thanks. The partner and I were wondering why the Bush smirk had returned last night. I'm surprised he didn't crack up.

With a kid like that and membership in the Federalist Society, perhaps he is impervious to the reality distortion field that is DC, but after the disastrous nominees the GOP has put on the court for the last 50 years, I'm concerned till we start seeing a string of decisions with a solid Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts wing. The Return of Four Horsemen would make me sleep better. After Social Secuirty Reform is passed, Bush could move on to repeal of the Wagner Act.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-07-20 12:31||   2005-07-20 12:31|| Front Page Top

#12 â€œFriends 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!

Sounds better and better, and little wonder the Bush smirk is back. The guy who kicked the enemy combatants issue out of the liberal's hands might be sitting on the bench when the issue goes to the SCOTUS.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-20 12:39||   2005-07-20 12:39|| Front Page Top

#13 Thanks for the wonderful photo, BigEd!
How delightful!

I love it when President Bush smirks (and he looked really happy) and that drives the Lefties insane, too!
I think Roberts is going to be just fine--I found myself saying "Fancy! A middle-aged white man! Amazing!"
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-20 13:07|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-20 13:07|| Front Page Top

#14 I just hope that the LLL Senators try to filibuster, then they will have something else to cry about for a while. Don't think they will because they will look silly given they gave him a unanimus pass four years ago. but don;t you just love it when they all seem to cry the same river of tears?
Posted by Cyber Sarge">Cyber Sarge  2005-07-20 15:59||   2005-07-20 15:59|| Front Page Top

#15 2b - remember Ron Jr. doing ballet in tights?
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-07-20 16:24||   2005-07-20 16:24|| Front Page Top

#16 Poor President Reagan...such a great and wonderful man and one of our finest Presidents, how could he bear either Ron, Jr. or Patty Davis?
As someone said, they must have given them the wrong babies at the hospital.
Talk radio hostess Laura Ingraham calls little Ron "Non-Reagan" and that works fine for me!
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-07-20 16:32|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-07-20 16:32|| Front Page Top

#17 Ohhh, Mrs. D -- a partner? How utterly wonderful!!!!!! But if Mr. Wife happens across the former Mr. D., he'll still make him feel the price of his iniquity, yes?
Posted by trailing wife 2005-07-20 20:58||   2005-07-20 20:58|| Front Page Top

#18 With this nomination, Bush has moved into the disfavor column in my book. The same is probably true of many women like me.

As I said a long time ago, the moment he makes moves that intrude upon women's freedom and attempts to shackle women's to breeding beds is the moment Demmies start looking good. This nomination threatens reproductive freedom.

Sorry, Ranties. I still stand with y'all against terror, but I'll be looking at the Democrat candidate in 2008.
Posted by jules 2 2005-07-20 23:52||   2005-07-20 23:52|| 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