So, who is this Roberts guy?

[tikitatas]

So, vis-à-vis the environment . . . what does this Roberts person think? Any precedent rulings?

[PHBeerman]

I do also agree that if men could get pregnant abortion would not only be a non-issue there would be store front clinics every 2 blocks!

BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Proof?

Your attempt to stir up trouble once again is not gonna work on me.
Forgive me if you are the one man on this earth who can claim to have never had drunken sex and not thought of the consequences until after the deed is done. We are just the lucky ones who don't have to deal with the issue after the fact.
By the way...Prove I'm wrong.

I am sure this happened with me a hell of a lot more than it ever did with you. However, I was always careful.

Careful to slide out the door in the morning before she got your name?

More like.
Hello my name is Frank.

[tikitatas]

So, vis-à-vis the environment . . . what does this Roberts person think? Any precedent rulings?

Ahem???

[ejr]

Here is what the Chicago Sun Times said about his record on the environment:

ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads

[PHBeerman]

ROBERTS, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing
en banc: The panel’s opinion in effect asks whether the
challenged regulation substantially affects interstate commerce,
rather than whether the activity being regulated does
so. Thus, the panel sustains the application of the Act in this
case because Rancho Viejo’s commercial development constitutes
interstate commerce and the regulation impinges on
that development, not because the incidental taking of arroyo
toads can be said to be interstate commerce. See Rancho
Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1071–73.
Such an approach seems inconsistent with the Supreme
Court’s holdings in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549
(1995) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
The Court in those cases upheld facial Commerce Clause
challenges to legislation prohibiting the possession of firearms
in school zones and violence against women. Given United
States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), such a facial challenge
can succeed only if there are no circumstances in which the
Act at issue can be applied without violating the Commerce
Clause. Under the panel’s approach in this case, however, if
the defendant in Lopez possessed the firearm because he was
part of an interstate ring and had brought it to the school to
sell it, or the defendant in Morrison assaulted his victims to
promote interstate extortion, then clearly the challenged regulations
in those cases would have substantially affected
interstate commerce, and the facial Commerce Clause challenges
would have failed.
That is precisely what the Fifth Circuit concluded recently
in rejecting the approach the panel took in this case. See
GDF Realty Inv., Ltd. v. Norton, 326 F.3d 622, 634–35 (5th
Cir. 2003). As the Fifth Circuit explained, ‘‘looking primarily
beyond the regulated activity TTT would ‘effectually obliterate’
the limiting purpose of the Commerce Clause,’’ and, under
such an approach, ‘‘the facial challenges in Lopez and Morrison
would have failed.’’ Id.
The panel’s approach in this case leads to the result that
regulating the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of its
own, lives its entire life in California constitutes regulating
‘‘Commerce TTT among the several States.’’ U.S. CONST. art.
2
I, § 8, cl. 3. To be fair, the panel faithfully applied National
Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C.
Cir. 1997). En banc review is appropriate because the approach
of the panel in this case and NAHB now conflicts with
the opinion of a sister circuit – a fact confirmed by that
circuit’s quotation from the NAHB dissent. See GDF Realty,
326 F.3d at 636 (quoting NAHB, 130 F.3d at 1067 (Sentelle,
J., dissenting)). Such review would also afford the opportunity
to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application
of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court

Here is the entire opinion.

[Sam]

I wonder how he would have voted on the recent "Eminent Domain" decision...

[PHBeerman]

I wonder how he would have voted on the recent "Eminent Domain" decision...

Probably the same way as his predecessor.

[Lightning Bolt]

Here is what the Chicago Sun Times said about his record on the environment:

ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project.
The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads

Makes 'em sound like some kind of STD

Roberts sounds like a reasonable, conservative, well-qualified nominee from what I've read.
I don't care to see a new justice come in and try to overturn Roe v. Wade, but rather provide fresh vision to this most recent breakdown of eminent domain.

[FFishstick]

And realize that the GREATEST majority of women using abortion are doing so, not because of medical reasons or something of that nature, but are using it for birth control because they can't control themselves.

Oh, now this begs some clarification. Just the bold part, Rick.

oh now I see it. Sorry it was a generalized statement based on the average type of woman that gets abortions. Sorry if you take offense to it, not meant to be offensive to women. It's just based on geographical, income and other things that GENERALLY hold true.

Oh Rick. I think we need to ummm, not go there. And afterall, this thread is supposed to be about Roberts and not sentiments regarding abortions. I really like you WAY too much to even go there with you.

Shall we just call it good?

Now Rick, if it had been me who made those statements, (by the way I understand and agree with the intention of your statements) they would be jumping all over my sh%t. Glad it was you that went there and not me.

[rednekkPH]

And realize that the GREATEST majority of women using abortion are doing so, not because of medical reasons or something of that nature, but are using it for birth control because they can't control themselves.

Oh, now this begs some clarification. Just the bold part, Rick.

oh now I see it. Sorry it was a generalized statement based on the average type of woman that gets abortions. Sorry if you take offense to it, not meant to be offensive to women. It's just based on geographical, income and other things that GENERALLY hold true.

Oh Rick. I think we need to ummm, not go there. And afterall, this thread is supposed to be about Roberts and not sentiments regarding abortions. I really like you WAY too much to even go there with you.

Shall we just call it good?

Now Rick, if it had been me who made those statements, (by the way I understand and agree with the intention of your statements) they would be jumping all over my sh%t. Glad it was you that went there and not me.

However, Rick (like almost everyone else here) doesn't go out of his way to be a complete dickhead on a daily basis. If you did the same, you might get a whole lot more leeway from folks here.

[12vmanRick]

However, Rick (like almost everyone else here) doesn't go out of his way to be a complete dickhead on a daily basis. If you did the same, you might get a whole lot more leeway from folks here.

Usually I am an incomplete dickhead but for those times where I would be dubbed a dickhead, it's usually unintentional, unless I feel provoked or belittled like today.

[buffettbride]

However, Rick (like almost everyone else here) doesn't go out of his way to be a complete dickhead on a daily basis. If you did the same, you might get a whole lot more leeway from folks here.

Usually I am an incomplete dickhead but for those times where I would be dubbed a dickhead, it's usually unintentional, unless I feel provoked or belittled like today.

Rick, I don't think the intent was to belittle you. I genuinely think a few people really didn't understand the point you were trying to convey. I'm sorry that you feel that way, though.

[rednekkPH]

Usually I am an incomplete dickhead but for those times where I would be dubbed a dickhead, it's usually unintentional, unless I feel provoked or belittled like today.

But Rick, I need to belittle you. It makes me feel better about myself, baldy

[FFishstick]

So let me get this straight on the abortion, womens rights things before we get back to George Bush's Awesome Presidential Nomination for the Supreme Court.

Ok here goes,

hypothetical,

I meet this lady at a bar, we both choose to get drunk, we then both choose to have sex, my sperm chooses to penetrate her egg resulting in a pregnancy. My rights to choose end there because I am a male. However, if she chooses to have an abortion, she can, and I have no legal rights in the matter, and she can legally choose to make me pay for the proceedure. If she chooses to have the baby, she can then choose to make me pay for half or more of the expense of having and raising this child, and again I have no say in the matter.


This sounds completely logical

[12vmanRick]

However, Rick (like almost everyone else here) doesn't go out of his way to be a complete dickhead on a daily basis. If you did the same, you might get a whole lot more leeway from folks here.

Usually I am an incomplete dickhead but for those times where I would be dubbed a dickhead, it's usually unintentional, unless I feel provoked or belittled like today.

Rick, I don't think the intent was to belittle you. I genuinely think a few people really didn't understand the point you were trying to convey. I'm sorry that you feel that way, though.

well I appreciate you saying that but I did feel that my opinion was pure crap and was treated like that I was an azzhole for stating that. I tried an enormus amount of times to clarify, reexplain, say I'd stand up for those individual rights and yet, people just kept on.

[Lightning Bolt]

So let me get this straight on the abortion, womens rights things before we get back to George Bush's Awesome Presidential Nomination for the Supreme Court.

Ok here goes,

hypothetical,

I meet this lady at a bar, we both choose to get drunk, we then both choose to have sex, my sperm chooses to penetrate her egg resulting in a pregnancy. My rights to choose end there because I am a male. However, if she chooses to have an abortion, she can, and I have no legal rights in the matter, and she can legally choose to make me pay for the proceedure. If she chooses to have the baby, she can then choose to make me pay for half or more of the expense of having and raising this child, and again I have no say in the matter.


This sounds completely logical

Nice synopsis (or complaint, your choice) Moral of the story -- Wear a hat!

[Sam]

So let me get this straight on the abortion, womens rights things before we get back to George Bush's Awesome Presidential Nomination for the Supreme Court.

Ok here goes,

hypothetical,

I meet this lady at a bar, we both choose to get drunk, we then both choose to have sex, my sperm chooses to penetrate her egg resulting in a pregnancy. My rights to choose end there because I am a male. However, if she chooses to have an abortion, she can, and I have no legal rights in the matter, and she can legally choose to make me pay for the proceedure. If she chooses to have the baby, she can then choose to make me pay for half or more of the expense of having and raising this child, and again I have no say in the matter.


This sounds completely logical

I will give you one better than that a true case that REALLY DID HAPPEN!
A ------- couple ( two women in a relationship or women in a pair of comfortable shoes as Robin Williams would say) wanted to have a child... they asked a well known and liked male friend to be a sperm donor. He agreed and he had no say so in the raising of the child.

Sometime after the child is born the ------- couple ( two women in a relationship or women in a pair of comfortable shoes as Robin Williams would say) split up and in their split.... they nail the sperm donor for child support. The guy took them to court and he lost.... Go figure.... I don't know if he ever had, wanted, or got visitation Rights!

[LIPH]

Usually I am an incomplete dickhead

Is that what it's called when Mr. Happy droops?

[Gulfbreeze]

Usually I am an incomplete dickhead

Is that what it's called when Mr. Happy droops?

[buffettbride]

However, Rick (like almost everyone else here) doesn't go out of his way to be a complete dickhead on a daily basis. If you did the same, you might get a whole lot more leeway from folks here.

Usually I am an incomplete dickhead but for those times where I would be dubbed a dickhead, it's usually unintentional, unless I feel provoked or belittled like today.

Rick, I don't think the intent was to belittle you. I genuinely think a few people really didn't understand the point you were trying to convey. I'm sorry that you feel that way, though.

well I appreciate you saying that but I did feel that my opinion was pure crap and was treated like that I was an azzhole for stating that. I tried an enormus amount of times to clarify, reexplain, say I'd stand up for those individual rights and yet, people just kept on.

This is just my opinion, but I felt some of your views implied so much more than sentiments about abortion and really leaned toward problems with other economic and social issues. Those sweeping generalizations in context of abortion didn't really make sense.

Edited to add: And also, when I said I was gonna drop it, I did.