Bushes new supreme court justice
- 07-22-2005, 09:55 AM
Bushes new supreme court justice
Judge John G. Roberts Jr is gonna ruin things imo. I am sorry, I just HAD to get my feelings out on this one. I dont usually start threads like this. He plans to help bush overturn ROWvsWADE. What the hell is this world coming to. I just cant stand the conservative direction this country is headed in. I am not a hippy liberal, I don't support legalizing drugs, I am not a gay activist, but RvW, bush why dont you and all your buddies adopt some of these unwanted babies and put your money where your mouth is. Any other thougts on this new guy? Seems like a total bush puppet to me. Sorry again, I know people dont always agree with me.
- 07-22-2005, 10:12 AM
this guy is actually incredibly qualified and based on his experience as a jurist (albeit brief) actually seems to be a fair judge .. applying the law not necessarily is politics (compare with Scalia or Thomas) .. he's certainly conservative but i wouldn't jump on him yet
and by the way when it comes to social issues i'm the most liberatarian person on the planet .. so this isn't coming from a "conservative" perspective
its also important to remember that if Roe v. Wade does get overturned .. that doesn't mean abortion is illegal .. it simply means its not an enforceable 14th amendment right by the federal government .. states could still have legalized abortion .. unless congress passes a law illegalizing it
07-22-2005, 10:19 AM
07-22-2005, 10:20 AM
07-22-2005, 10:31 AM
no actually i have very socialistic beliefs in terms of the economy .. i just don't want the government in my home/personal life one iota
07-25-2005, 12:42 AM
To much emphasis on roe Vs wade. Do you seriously think he's just going to jump in a turn this over. It's scare hype. I personally think the man is highly qualified myself. Personally I don't understand why people fight so hard for abortion anyway. It's a lack of responsibility that causes people to have them in the first place in 99% of cases.
07-25-2005, 09:49 AM
yeah... roberts is actually a safe buffer pick.. now bush can pick a more right winged justice the next time around
07-25-2005, 11:17 AM
07-25-2005, 11:38 AM
Don't know much about Roberts, couldn't comment on him specifically. But all activist judges are a problem on the left and right. Law is supposed to be made in the legislature, not the courts. Some amount of judicial review is necessary and good, but very little is really needed. One of the problems is the ideology that the courts are the makers and breakers of laws has permeated the country. How many times have you heard someone worrying about this law or that, only to hear another person jump in and tell them not to worry, the courts will strike it down? It relieves people of two essential duties: learning about how our system of government is actually supposed to work; voting for people more carefully rather than taking a brute force partisan approach to elections and expecting the courts to clean up the resultant mess of legislation.
As far as Roe V Wade, over turning that as a legally indefensible ruling is not the same as being pro life, nor is a justice supporting it necessarily expressing a pro choice position. All too often ideologies do get injected into the judicial process, but it's more than possible for people to be for or against that ruling on purely legal, constitutional terms regardless of their position on abortion. It's the mix of legal and political ideology on the part of the uninformed public that breeds the idea that to be pro choice you have to support the Roe v Wade decision, and to be pro life you have to oppose it. Regardless of one's position on the issue of abortion maintaining a clear cut distinction between those who make the law, those who apply the law, those who enforce the law, and the duties and requirements for all three areas are crucial to having a strong law either way. Otherwise you ge the morrass of BS we currently have, with judges thinking they're God on Earth, legislators who pass laws without reading them or giving much of a **** what's in them, and law enforcement officers so overwelmed by the amount of rules and regulations they have to enforce that they can't enforce any laws effectively, and the public for the same reasons starts to lose respect for the law.
If Roberts is willing to make decisions based on the constitution regardless of the outcome of those decisions, and can support those decisions without going through logical gyrations that would make you puke, he'd be better than most judges and worth having on the court.
07-25-2005, 11:46 AM
He's a solid pick. If the Democrats were smart they would confirm him quickly, and get back to Rove.
07-25-2005, 03:19 PM
I think there are two issues here...............
1. Whether or not Roberts will be a conservative judge or not. Many times in the past a judge has seemed conservative and after being confirmed turned into a liberal. There is really no way to tell until they vote.
2. The issue of abortion. I really feel abortion is a non issue. As someone all ready pointed out if Roe V. Wade is overturned, all it will do is leave it up to the states to decide. My position is there is nothing in the constitution that says abortion is a right. IMO it is not unconstitutional for the states to decide whether or not they allow abortions. I also separate abortion into three categories
a. Should abortions be allowed in the early stages of the pregnancy....
b. Should partial birth abortions be legal
c. Should 14 year olds be able to get an abortion with out notifying theirs parents.
My position is a reluctant yes on A and no on B and C. I have a problem with they way abortion is taught in "health Classes" which basically amounts to teaching it as a form of contraception which is wrong. If the subject is taught they should show kids what abortions actually are. When someone is faced with that decision they are going to live with theirs decision for the rest of their life in both cases. Unfortunately , many people don't really think about it until after the fact. I also have a problem with the planned parenthood type of extremist organizations. They believe that any type of abortion is ok and if my 14 year old daughter gets pregnant she has a right to get an abortion with out me being notified. A conservative organization also did a sting operation on them where they posted as girl as young as 13 being pregnant telling the phone operators that their boyfriends had got them pregnant. In all the cases the age of theirs boyfriend was significantly older than the girl. In other words it was obvious that a crime was committed. In most cases the girl would say she was 13 and her b.f was 22. The majority of the time the operator would tell the girl not to tell her that because they are required by law to report crimes. The operator usually ignored this and gave the girl the information where and how to get the abortion but did not report the crime. Obviously you have extremist on the other side who kill doctors who perform abortions or bomb a clinic.
Also you can't have it both ways............... you can't have a socialist government and have the government stay out of your business. It doesn't work like that. This country was founded on principles of small government whose power is derived from the people. One of the reasons the revolutionary war started was because of taxes. You guys remember the Boston tea party? IMO a socialist form of government or economy is a hell of allot more unconstitutional than kicking the ability to get abortions back to the states. If you are concerned about a right wing judge on the supreme court Maybe you should rethink that position. All the recent scary decisions are coming from the left wing part of the court. The eminent domain decision was the liberal wing of the court. The death penalty for minors decision looked at the opinion of the world instead of the constitutionality of it in the majority opinion. Sorry the opinion of any one out side of the united states doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the constitution says.
07-25-2005, 03:27 PM
.The other issue is they only will have one chance to filibuster. If they do it now, they will look bad especially after being so close to the compromise they made. If they do it early they are going to have egg on their face too soon and they will probably have to confirm who ever Bush nominates for the next slot. So what will do is attempt to damage Bush's credibility by attempting to smear Roberts as much as possible this time then pull out the filibuster next time. The only problem is they don't have a lock on the mainstream media like they did when Bork was nominated. I wouldn't get too exited about Rove just yet that could be another situation were the dems and the press end up having egg on their face. The question is who told Novak.He's a solid pick. If the Democrats were smart they would confirm him quickly, and get back to Rove.
07-25-2005, 05:28 PM
Found this at a political board I post at daily.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Jmfcst’s take on the Rove/CIA leak scandal
First, the good news for the GOP:
1) Novak had two administration sources and a CIA source. The 2nd administration source was Rove, who, when told by Novak of the role of Wilson’s wife in sending Wilson to Niger, responded that he had heard the same story. That is neither criminal nor unethical.
The bad news for the GOP, from bad to worse:
1) Rove’s conversation with Novak is clearly not the focal point of the investigation, which means that something worse is going on.
2) Novak is clearly not the target of the investigation, which means that something worse is going on.
3) Rove may have taken the information given to him by Novak and spread it to others in the media and by doing such, implicated himself.
4) Novak’s other non-Rove administration source is the likely target of the investigation.
5) Novak’s other non-Rove administration source is likely linked to the Vice President’s Office.
6) Novak’s CIA source could be a joint target of the investigation and is a friend of the Vice President’s office who helped the Vice President’s Office out the Wilson’s wife.
This is the nightmare scenario for the GOP and could burn this administration to the ground, costing the GOP both houses of Congress and the White House.
I’d place this probability at 50%.
The GOP’s only hope:
The target of the investigation is not someone linked to the Bush Administration. I’d place this probability at 25%.
Or the investigation could end with no indictments. I’d place this probability at 25%.
I pretty much agree w/ this analysis.
07-25-2005, 08:09 PM
Stick to the news to get information on things like this. I have been on vacation so I really haven't been keeping up with the story. As I said before the 100 dollar question is who told Nolvak. The last I heard Rove apparently testified that he got the information from Nolvak that would indicate that the leak wasn't him. Since Novak was the only one who gave Plame's name in a news story, it would seem the only question is who told him which appears not to be Rove at this time. In order for a crime to be committed they will have to prove that who ever told Nolvak knew that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. Wilson has credibility problems but that is a separate issue. There also seems to be some question on if she was actually undercover or not which there is varying opinions on. Until more information comes in I'll reserve my judgment.Found this at a political board I post at daily.
The problem is the left and the media got sexually aroused at the thought of the leak being Rove. If it turns out the Rove had nothing to do with it and his conversation with Cooper was what he said it was, they are going to have egg on their face and the wind is going to be taken out of the story.
07-27-2005, 08:44 PM
Well it seems like a brilliant decision on Bu$h's behalf, abortion controversy consuming the media should nicely distract us from the hornet's nest known as the war in Iraq.
07-28-2005, 04:02 PM
Not really who ever the republican nominee is for president is going to innervate the war which is why they should nominate someone who isn't close to the Bush administration.Well it seems like a brilliant decision on Bu$h's behalf, abortion controversy consuming the media should nicely distract us from the hornet's nest known as the war in Iraq.
07-28-2005, 04:06 PM
all of this is just silly. So what? someone can't be a judge now because they have religous convictions.
Very sad that in america people are giving this man such a hard time because he loves God.
07-28-2005, 04:25 PM
seperation between church and state, its plan and simple. You dont have as much of a problem with it cuz you both share the same religon. You might not be so happy if it was a Jewish or Muslim judge (or maybe you woundnt care, just a guess)
07-28-2005, 04:30 PM
Separation of Church and State "does not inlclude" keeping religious people out of office.
It means that the church will not "directly" effect the operations of the state and vice versa.
Everyone has religion, whether they refert to it as religion or not, and everyone has convictions that other people will not agree with.
If this guy had a history of radical decisions in favor of Christian ideology, then I can see the complaint. Just because he's a christian conservative is not a valid complaint.
07-28-2005, 04:31 PM
07-28-2005, 04:36 PM
Many of them anyway....I'm not a church-going person, I'm just a realist.Originally Posted by BrowneFan
07-28-2005, 05:07 PM
True that many of the founding father's were fairly religious but you might want to do some more reading about the main wordsmith of the document... T. Jefferson
Personally, there is NO way to seperate your core beliefs from your job/career BUT there is a problem when any judge pushes his/her own agenda, same goes for legislators, and govenor/presidents... they are servants of the people. I would have just as much problem with a judge that was way far to the right as I would have with one that way far to the left.. centerists I think is the term...
On the new nominee, from what I have heard so far, I think that he might make a good one, conservative but at the same time intelligent and FAIR.. and very much a strict constructivist...
07-28-2005, 05:11 PM
VG, Rove was the leak but now he is spliting legal hairs.. sounds like a certain president from a few years back... lied then tried to split the legal hair of sexual relationship.... The whole thing stinks and IF I were in Rove's position, I would have resigned to spare my friends and boss from having to defend my screw up.. but does look like honor is in Rove's bag of tricks..
07-28-2005, 05:19 PM
Belief in a higher power? Yes.Originally Posted by BrowneFan
Christian? Hell no.
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and numerous others were all Deists.
Btw, here's a nice Benjamin Franklin quote for you:
"To open the eye of faith is to close the eye of reason."
As for this guy, honestly he seems ok to me. You're all right about the Roe v Wade thing being no big deal. Personally it is better left to each state anyway. The abortion states will suddenly see an influx of business from folks travelling cross-state to have an abortion and the anti-abortion states will be happy because they think they are doing "the gud lo-urd's work" by stopping abortions.
07-28-2005, 06:09 PM
Ya know, politically you and I may disagree on a few issues, but I can really appreciate your ability to address an issue fairlyOriginally Posted by Matthew D
07-28-2005, 06:16 PM
I didnt say all were Christian.All i said was belief in a higher power. What part of that did you not understand?Originally Posted by Nullifidian
I realize Franklin and other were diests and that separates them from atheists, they believe in something higher. I for one am glad I am in touch with the other side, I know my spirit guide and I know there is a God!
In fact my religion Gnostic Christianity, which is not a believer in the harsh dogmas of mainstream Christianity, respects all religions that believe in a higher power.
The reason I even responded to this post was to say that just because the man is a Christian does not mean he is going to impose his faith on others. He is a stict constitutionalist. Just because someone is a believer in a moral higher power doesnt mean they should be disqualified from being a judge.
07-29-2005, 12:20 AM
It seems much of the controversy surrounding the founding fathers is in quotes taken out of context. I refer to this page:
Moreover, anyone forget the widespread use of the New England Primer which was second in use only to the King James Bible?
07-29-2005, 12:30 AM
it's mainly the media and far left people. they are one in the same unfortunately todayOriginally Posted by BrowneFan
My Little Site about Hair Loss & Anabolics-
hair loss from steroids dot com
07-29-2005, 12:38 AM
But the New England Primer was ONLY used in schools in the New England area mainly because it was a Puritain religious article... Quakers in PA used the teaching of Fox and most of the Virginia schools used secular materials from England...
I am not questioning that the framers of the Constitution believed in a higher power but I think that some in the religious right are corrupting the founders believe system to futher their own ends... Almost every culture I know of that has had a state religion has had problems with unflexible, antisocial behaviors from inside the government itself..
Look at Oliver Cromwell in England
The Catholic Church during the middle ages and crusades
Iran, Pakistan, and other extreme Muslim countries..
Faith is one thing but government is another.. having faith does help you govern better but imposing your faith on others takes away not only their right to choice, given to us by the Creator, but also damns you to a fools errand from try to convert the people that don't want to be converted..
America is a large country with many different people from many parts of the world each bring their unique insights to this wonderful country this is what makes the US great ... but to hold up one idea/religion as being the only way is wrong on so many levels that I can't even comprehend it. I guess I am strange in a way, while I believe in God and Jesus Christ, I can't force myself to press my ideas on others... it just seems overtly wrong to me to do that..
07-29-2005, 12:40 AM
That is where I think you are wrong CED.. Just a couple of question and I am not trying to badger you are anything but what is your definition of the far left? What is your definition of the far right?Originally Posted by CEDeoudes59
Similar Forum Threads
- By Purge in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 06-28-2010, 10:47 AM
- By TheDeadlifter in forum PoliticsReplies: 3Last Post: 05-16-2010, 10:39 AM
- By Funny Monkey in forum PoliticsReplies: 39Last Post: 08-19-2005, 09:20 AM