Bush Chief Justice nominee supports Roe

[rebel_conservative]

President Announces Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1766058,00.html

Roberts supports abortion rights -
"In his Senate testimony, Roberts acknowledged that, on the Circuit Court, he would have an obligation to follow precedents established by the Supreme Court, including the controversial decision invalidating many restrictions on the right to an abortion. He stated: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land...There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." [10] (See John Roberts Supreme Court nomination and hearings for speculation about Roberts' current views and the potential impact they might have during his 2005 confirmation hearings and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

 

[Harpuia]

We'll see if we ever cross that bridge again...

 

[KenH]

Actually, Robersts stated that as a lower court judge he has to defer to the rulings of the Supreme Court.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9215790/

diane

 

[Maynard Keenan]

He said he would follow the law. A circuit court judge can not ignore SC precedent. Now as a member of the SC he is a precedent maker. He can ignore what the court has previously said.

 

[ps139]

I am glad Bush is appointing a defender of life, but I must admit I think it is dumb to try to get him at Chief Justice... why not one of the other justices with experience?

 

[imind]

Now as a member of the SC he is a precedent maker. He can ignore what the court has previously said.

the doctrine of stare decisis is not ignored by supreme court justices, and is held in exceptionally high regard by all judges at all levels. this talk of rulings being overturned with new justices is nonsense; it just won't happen.

 

[MaryS]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9215790/

diane

That article suggests that Roberts may not be in favor of abortion, which I think she be the proper type to replace Rehnquist since he is one of the only 3 on the Supreme Court that has a known record of opposing abortion.
-----------------

part of the article from the link you provided:

“The stakes are higher and the Senate’s advice and consent responsibility is even more important,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., expressed concerns about the court’s balance.

“Replacing two justices at the same time will have an enormous impact on the court and on the lives and liberties of all Americans for decades,” said Ralph Neas, president of the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way, which opposes Roberts’ nomination.

--------------------

Since the Senate Minority Leader and People for the American Way are opposing Roberts, we can get ready for the possibility of a process now known as "borking". The term "borking" relates to how vigorously opponents launched a pre-emptive attack on President's Reagan choice of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. I think it was Anthony Kennedy that became the "compromise" candidate when Bork was rejected.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Good.

 

[Billnew]

The article says they need to learn more about Roberts?

They have been demanding more and more documents, (Borking)


"MR SPEAKER, We cannot proceed with a vote, without the nOminee's
first grade report card! I think he must be hiding something if he can't show it to us."

Oh, and Roberts has already said,"Roe is set law, and can not be overturned."

Seems to me to give to much power to the Supreme court. Laws must be changed, just because a group decides one way. Even if the decision is weak?
Who decides when the Supreme court has gone to far?
(Not sighting Roe, but just a general observation)

 

[butterfoot]

Good.

I believe that the Democrats would approve anyone to the Supreme Court as long as they were a hard core abortions rights activist. Wouldn't matter on their experience just that one topic is all the Dems need.


-cw

 

[Finella]

The article says they need to learn more about Roberts?

They have been demanding more and more documents, (Borking)


"MR SPEAKER, We cannot proceed with a vote, without the nOminee's
first grade report card! I think he must be hiding something if he can't show it to us."

Oh, and Roberts has already said,"Roe is set law, and can not be overturned."

Seems to me to give to much power to the Supreme court. Laws must be changed, just because a group decides one way. Even if the decision is weak?
Who decides when the Supreme court has gone to far?
(Not sighting Roe, but just a general observation)

The point of the power of the Supreme Court is that it is independent of the electorate. It's part of those Checks and Balances we all learned about in social studies or government classes. Remember Checks and Balances? Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, Legislative Branch.

Anyway, this isn't about laws, it's about the constitutionality of the laws. That's what the Supreme Court rules on. If you dislike the way they're ruling, then chances are you'll be happier changing the constitution. Which can be done if enough people want it to be changed. Hence the balance of power.

 

[imind]

I believe that the Democrats would approve anyone to the Supreme Court as long as they were a hard core abortions rights activist. Wouldn't matter on their experience just that one topic is all the Dems need.

i believe you have little understanding of the democratic party. i also believe you generalize people far too often.

 

[MaryS]

I believe that the Democrats would approve anyone to the Supreme Court as long as they were a hard core abortions rights activist. Wouldn't matter on their experience just that one topic is all the Dems need.


-cw

In spite of all the other issues that some Democrats bring up, the abortion issue does seem to be the real "litmus test".
During Barbara Boxer's 2004 Senate campaign, she ran constant television ads with a picture of the Supreme Court building and the message : Extremists in Washington want to ban all abortions, and the change of one judge could overturn a woman's right to choose.

Not only was her message deceiving, but it totally ignored the fact that there were only 3 known judges on the Supreme Court who have shown any opposition to abortion AND the dearly departed Rehnquist just happened to be one of them.

Justice David Souter is a known part of the left-wing of the Supreme Court, but at the time he was voted on they must have made him appear to be some sort of a radical because 9 Democrats in the Senate, including Kerry and Kennedy, voted against him!

The Senate voted 90 to 9 to confirm David Souter in 1990, all 9 opponents were democrats
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=101&session=2&vote=00259

 

[Texas Lynn]

I believe that the Democrats would approve anyone to the Supreme Court as long as they were a hard core abortions rights activist. Wouldn't matter on their experience just that one topic is all the Dems need.

Democrats (in general-Bob Casey excepted) know without the right to control one's own body all other rights are meaningless. However, as the Democratic Party is the party of the bulk of trial lawyers, finding those with excellent experience is never a problem, so, your point is at best irrelevant.

 

[Texas Lynn]

In spite of all the other issues that some Democrats bring up, the abortion issue does seem to be the real "litmus test".

I would certainly hope so.

During Barbara Boxer's 2004 Senate campaign, she ran constant television ads with a picture of the Supreme Court building and the message : Extremists in Washington want to ban all abortions, and the change of one judge could overturn a woman's right to choose.

Not only was her message deceiving, but it totally ignored the fact that there were only 3 known judges on the Supreme Court who have shown any opposition to abortion AND the dearly departed Rehnquist just happened to be one of them.

Slightly hyperbolic, but the level of deception was never close to "we are invading Iraq because of 9-11...

Justice David Souter is a known part of the left-wing of the Supreme Court, but at the time he was voted on they must have made him appear to be some sort of a radical because 9 Democrats in the Senate, including Kerry and Kennedy, voted against him!

The Senate voted 90 to 9 to confirm David Souter in 1990, all 9 opponents were democrats

None of this is surprising. Justice Souter came to the Court as a "stealth candidate". His "paper trail" was surprisingly narrow. The nine nay votes were votes of conscience because in the view of those dissenters Daddy Bush did wrong by not nominating a strong supporter of human rights with a measurable record of this. They knew their numbers were not going to carry the day but they did what they believed was the right thing to do. The fact the brouhaha over Souter turned out to be a wasted effort as he did indeed turn out to be a Justice who voted right most of the time was just gravy. I think three right-wing Republicans voted against Ginsberg too. It's not unusual.

 

[ps139]

Here is my simple opinion:

With an issue like abortion, there really is no middle ground. And everyone wants justices who support their view. And they will make up any pretense and side arguments to support/disqualify the person nominated. When it all comes down to it, it is really about "Does he agree with me, or not?" Because people will not admit that, we have all of this red tape, mudslinging, and unnecessary hyperbole.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Here is my simple opinion:

With an issue like abortion, there really is no middle ground. And everyone wants justices who support their view. And they will make up any pretense and side arguments to support/disqualify the person nominated. When it all comes down to it, it is really about "Does he agree with me, or not?" Because people will not admit that, we have all of this red tape, mudslinging, and unnecessary hyperbole.

imho, there is middle ground - let abortion be a states rights issue again.

whilst I would like to see the Federal govt recognise that life (and your rights) begin at conception; letting Alabama and Texas ban abortion and California and New York provide it free would be preferable to the current situation and is the middle ground.

 

[rebel_conservative]

...without the right to control one's own body all other rights are meaningless...

don't want a baby? don't have sex and you can't get pregnant. that is control over your own body.

 

[rebel_conservative]

i believe you have little understanding of the democratic party. i also believe you generalize people far too often.

I think that it is a fair generalisation to say that the Democratic party is ideologically dedicated to abortion rights. many senior Democrat politicians have had to renounce earlier pro-life positions when they wanted to become national figures in the party, and the democrats have, as marys said, used roe as a litmus test of judicial nominees.