BuffettNews.com

John G. Roberts, Jr.?????

They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Wasn't he appointed by the President to the committee to try to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade? The talk down here is that he is also anti birth control as well.

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Wasn't he appointed by the President to the committee to try to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade? The talk down here is that he is also anti birth control as well.

BOO!!!! Just my opinion... You don't have to agree with me, but being a woman I'm a big supporter of my right to choose, and my right to obtain acceptable means of birth control.... Which reminds me... pill time!

a brief he co-wrote in 1990 suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

“The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution,” the brief said.

z-man wrote:a brief he co-wrote in 1990 suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 high court decision that legalized abortion.

“The court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution,” the brief said.

I just finished a book called "The Brethren" that goes into detail about the inner workings of the supreme court and how they decide certain cases. The book follows the first few years of Cheif Justice Burger's career witht he court and they go into detail with the whole abortion issue.
Part of me is concerned of course. But there's another part of me that knows how strong certain justices are held to precedents regardless of whether they agree with them or not.
Justice Blackmun took control of the abortion opinion and did a phenomenal job with it and I hope it is never overturned. The constitution states in the very first paragraph to "secure the blessings of liberty". Whether you're a strict constructionist or not, one could argue that liberty to choose one way or another is in that document.
Okay... I'm done....

Cate, here's some background info:

John Roberts
Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.



Alliance for Justice Resources:

Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts





Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
B.A., 1976, summa cum laude & J.D., 1979, magna cum laude, Harvard University
1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
U.S. Department of Justice
1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
1986-89, Associate
1993-present, Partner


General Background
Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

Reproductive Rights
as a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

Environmental Issues
As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

Civil Rights
After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

Religion in Schools
While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

Pro Bono
Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

Other Information
Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.


1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nom ... omineeID=5

So much for a moderate choice.

This guy is way out on the right!

Finsupinfla wrote:So much for a moderate choice.

This guy is way out on the right!

ya think?

habourgirl wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Wasn't he appointed by the President to the committee to try to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade? The talk down here is that he is also anti birth control as well.

BOO!!!! Just my opinion... You don't have to agree with me, but being a woman I'm a big supporter of my right to choose, and my right to obtain acceptable means of birth control.... Which reminds me... pill time!

Harbourgirl you just reminded me of a story, on a recent double date, the other girl an my date were talking about birth control, my date looks right at me an says "that reminds me I need to take my pill", pulls out the the circle and pops one at the table all while smiling. I thought it was the greeniest light I've ever gotten, later that night I went in for the kiss and she got the most horrified look and back out quicker than anyone I've ever seen. I was stumped. I later learned she asked the other girl if she should've let me kiss her and the other girl said "yes" so she was waiting the rest of the night but I was afraid of the reaction I'd get again to try.

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

There is a huge difference between this statement of supporting the law as it is written, and as the Supreme Court has interpreted it (because that is what a judge is obligated to do) and the position he will be in of influencing that interpretation.

And some of the commentary I heard tonight is that Roe v Wade may not get overturned, but there are lots of specific cases on the horizon where he could rule that would make it very difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion. For example, there is a Parental Notification case, regarding Planned Parenthood that would provide the opportunity for the Supreme Court to put major obstacles between some women and a legal abortion.

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Wasn't he appointed by the President to the committee to try to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade? The talk down here is that he is also anti birth control as well.

He stated during his confirmation in 2003 that "Roe v Wade is the settled law of the land". Settled Law is a legal term that means basically that it is a legal decision that has been through all of the challenge processes and is therefore no longer subject to review by the courts. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has never overturned anything deemed so. Leon Panetta (former congressman from California, White House chief of staff under Clinton) says Roberts is "bullettproof" and will likely be confirmed quickly.

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Wasn't he appointed by the President to the committee to try to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade? The talk down here is that he is also anti birth control as well.

He stated during his confirmation in 2003 that "Roe v Wade is the settled law of the land". Settled Law is a legal term that means basically that it is a legal decision that has been through all of the challenge processes and is therefore no longer subject to review by the courts. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has never overturned anything deemed so. Leon Panetta (former congressman from California, White House chief of staff under Clinton) says Roberts is "bullettproof" and will likely be confirmed quickly.

I understand that, Corey...but I also agree with what ejr said. What he claims and how he actually interprets (or influences the interpretation of) the law can be two very different things...and the talk down here is exactly that...that he will go after the parts of Roe v. Wade that he can influence.

Finsupinfla wrote:This guy is way out on the right!

There's no such thing as too far right.

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Wasn't he appointed by the President to the committee to try to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade? The talk down here is that he is also anti birth control as well.

I don't know, do you have some leaked memo that states this?

I find it humorous to see the liberals of our nation complain about a conservative/conservative moderate nomination by President Bush. Let's look at the record, all the way back to Harding. It will show that of the two parties the Republicans have the most balanced list of nominations for the Supreme Court. In fact, Republican Presidents have nominated some of the most liberal and left leaning moderates to the court. The Democrats on the other hand have with out fail nominated liberal judges, and those that were considered moderate, were leaning so far to the left they might as well have been lying on their sides. Study your History Kiddies, it will come back and bite you in the butt, pay back is a biotch.

btt ( so I can learn more)

ejr wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

There is a huge difference between this statement of supporting the law as it is written, and as the Supreme Court has interpreted it (because that is what a judge is obligated to do) and the position he will be in of influencing that interpretation.

And some of the commentary I heard tonight is that Roe v Wade may not get overturned, but there are lots of specific cases on the horizon where he could rule that would make it very difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion. For example, there is a Parental Notification case, regarding Planned Parenthood that would provide the opportunity for the Supreme Court to put major obstacles between some women and a legal abortion.

yeah, cause a parent shouldn't have the right to be notified when their minor daughter is about abort her child.

Its about time Bush acted presidential and did excatly what Clinton did while in office, chose a nominee that fits his constituency and what he feels is right. Let the Senate decide up or down, straight up.

Now in the words of Forrest Gump "that's all I have to say about that"

habourgirl wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:

redwinemaker wrote:

Brown Eyed Girl wrote:They were just talking about him on the radio. He is a rock solid conservative. However, he has virtually no paper trail, which may make him appear more "moderate" and thus allow him to make it thru the Dems. He has only been a judge for 2 years and has written few, if any, opinions. What he has written in legal briefs does not need to stand up to the scrutiny of an opinion. He has impeccable legal credentials, and that combined with the lack of paper trail makes him the perfect "stealth candidate" according to the woman being interviewed. He is anti Roe.

That's basically what they said so far, they said they will have more of the interview later.

to clarify, he also said re:Roe "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Wasn't he appointed by the President to the committee to try to overturn or restrict Roe v. Wade? The talk down here is that he is also anti birth control as well.

BOO!!!! Just my opinion... You don't have to agree with me, but being a woman I'm a big supporter of my right to choose, and my right to obtain acceptable means of birth control.... Which reminds me... pill time!

nobody is perfect. Relax, Roe V. Wade will NEVER be overturned. Ditto on the agree on this next statement... pro choice (meaning YOU have the right to chose) but I PERSONALLY feel abortion is wrong. I also don't like that a woman that is married can do whatever she wants about something inside her that is partly mine.. not trying to debate here. Just my 1/2 cent.