john roberts Options

[*kryogenix*]

I'm all for this guy. The ads saying he supports violence against abortion clinics are not true.

Agree or disagree?

[Mulder]

well...he is against abortion..just like bush is. hes republican. he's bush's choice.

thats enough for me to say god help us all.


obviously, this was not a good point. ill come back with some actual evidence later.

edit

In a February 1982 memorandum, Judge Roberts urged Mr. Smith to refuse to join a sex-discrimination suit alleging that the Kentucky state prison system offered more vocational-training opportunities to male prisoners than to female prisoners. Although Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds -- a staunch conservative known for opposition to affirmative action -- had advised joining the case, Judge Roberts wrote that doing so would be "inconsistent" with the administration's "judicial restraint effort" that discouraged courts from "interference with state prison programs."

Moreover, Judge Roberts wrote that "many reasonable justifications" could be found for treating men and women differently and, in any event, pressing the suit could lead the state to achieve equality by abolishing all programs for all prisoners

-from here


In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans

- froom here

[technicolour]

coughcough LIBERAL BULLSHIIITTT coughcough

But anyways. I'm all for him.

If you dig into everyone's closet you're going to find something that makes the guy seem like a bad guy. seriously. screw the past, it isn't going to be helping much.

People really need to be focusing on the matters at HAND not what he did 5 years ago. The world has changed since then and people need to embrace the change.

[*mipadi*]

coughcough LIBERAL BULLSHIIITTT coughcough

But anyways. I'm all for him.

If you dig into everyone's closet you're going to find something that makes the guy seem like a bad guy. seriously. screw the past, it isn't going to be helping much.

People really need to be focusing on the matters at HAND not what he did 5 years ago. The world has changed since then and people need to embrace the change.

I hardly think his record as a judge is "liberal bullshit," and his decisions in the past are very relevant to his job today.

As for the TV ads depicting him as a supporter of anti-abortion terrorists, that is a bunch of bullshit.

[technicolour]

I was talking about the sites that they came from but okay..

But all they are doing is focusing on his past. There are other more important things...

[Mulder]

the washington post is now liberal bullshit?

[technicolour]

DOES ANYONE EVER WATCH THE NEWS?!

It's a slanted paper. More left. Always has been more to the left.

[*mipadi*]

So what is unbiased? Fox news?

[Mulder]

i was going to say that. im looking for an un-biased article about roberts on their website. so far, ive found none.

[*kryogenix*]

i was going to say that. im looking for an un-biased article about roberts on their website. so far, ive found none.

http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html

NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts

Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers “criminals” who should be prosecuted fully.

Summary



An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .

The ad is false.

And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.

The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.

Article continues from there, so be sure to click the link.

[technicolour]

What news source isnt biased in one way or another?

[i'll read that in a bit..]

[*disco infiltrator*]

^ Good point, why are you complaining about the Washington Post then?

He's definitely not my top choice.

[illumineering]

coughcough LIBERAL BULLSHIIITTT coughcough

But anyways. I'm all for him.

If you dig into everyone's closet you're going to find something that makes the guy seem like a bad guy. seriously. screw the past, it isn't going to be helping much.

People really need to be focusing on the matters at HAND not what he did 5 years ago. The world has changed since then and people need to embrace the change.

The resume of Mr. Roberts is an historical record of his education, work experience, competence, integrity and temperament. A thorough review of this record is not only prudent, but a legal requirement for appointment to the court. What he has done over his entire professional career is going to determine the rating he is assigned. The basis for this evaluation is going to come from the past.

The matter at hand is the completion of the assessment of Mr. Robert's credentials. He will be thoroughly evaluated beyond the scope of 5 years. He is nominated for the highest court in the United States. Any candidate for that position needs to withstand thorough scrutiny to sit on the bench that is responsible for judicial review on the federal and state level as well as interpretation of the constitution.

[zepfel]

The resume of Mr. Roberts is an historical record of his education, work experience, competence, integrity and temperament.  A thorough review of this record is not only prudent, but a legal requirement for appointment to the court.  What he has done over his entire professional career is going to determine the rating he is assigned.  The basis for this evaluation is going to come from the past.

The matter at hand is the completion of the assessment of Mr. Robert's credentials.  He will be thoroughly evaluated beyond the scope of 5 years.  He is nominated for the highest court in the United States.  Any candidate for that position needs to withstand thorough scrutiny to sit on the bench that is responsible for judicial review on the federal and state level as well as interpretation of the constitution.

i agree. also, 5 years may seem a lot now, but at his age, his political standing is not likely to flutter gratuitously (sp?) from one end of the scale to the other.

[*kryogenix*]

We all agree that the NARAL ad on John Roberts is misleading right?

[illumineering]

We all agree that the NARAL ad on John Roberts is misleading right?

I haven't seen it. Could you give a link or an overview?

[*kryogenix*]

I haven't seen it.  Could you give a link or an overview?

NARAL pulled the ad. Overview from factcheck is in one of my above posts, but here it is again.

An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham , Alabama .