"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" - Hon. John Roberts

7/19/2005 7:48:09 PM

never gonna happen

might as well stop gaying up every topic you make with anti-abortion shit

what else does this douchebag roberts stand for? is he moderate, ultra-conservative, or wolfpack2k-right-wing?

7/19/2005 8:15:36 PM

All we need is for Stevens or Ginsburg to die/retire, and it's in the bag.

7/19/2005 8:18:43 PM

I read an article on AOL saying he was a "rock solid conservative"

7/19/2005 8:18:50 PM

I think he is. Bush put him on the D.C. Circuit. Presidents do not put moderates on the D.C. Circuit, because it is the "supreme court of administrative law" - since the Supreme Court takes so few cases, the D.C. Circuit usually has the final word when it comes to the federal government's regulatory agencies.

7/19/2005 8:20:29 PM

might as well use this quote they keep saying, too, "no paper trail"

7/19/2005 8:20:55 PM

Quote :

"All we need is for Stevens or Ginsburg to die/retire, and it's in the bag."

You should kill them. Think about how many babies you are killing by not doing it, you're a damned murderer.

7/19/2005 8:21:26 PM

so are you going to hold a mass funeral after you stop jizzing all over yourself?

7/19/2005 8:25:18 PM

post some links to this joker's rulings or something. i'm in the dark on this asshole.

7/19/2005 8:34:45 PM

WELL IF Wolfpack2K LIKES HIM, HOW BAD CAN HE BE?

7/19/2005 8:39:39 PM

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov

7/19/2005 8:39:53 PM

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-3067a.pdf
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-5006a.pdf
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-7059a.pdf
These are his most recent majority opinions


[Edited on July 19, 2005 at 8:48 PM. Reason : 1 more]

7/19/2005 8:46:08 PM

Quote :

"While deputy solicitor general, Roberts co-signed a brief in Rust v. Sullivan that argued for a ban on federal money for clinics that provided abortions, counseled women about the procedure or referred them to a facility for an abortion. The brief went further than the question presented in the case, arguing that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." In a second abortion-related case, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, Roberts signed a "friend of the court" brief arguing that Operation Rescue was not engaged in a conspiracy to deprive women of their constitutional rights. Roberts co-authored a brief that argued in favor of clergy-led prayer at public school graduations. The case was Lee v. Weisman, and the government lost. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=954398&page=1

7/19/2005 9:12:07 PM

wow! he keeps getting better!

7/19/2005 9:15:03 PM

Do you really not want a seperation of church and state in this country...?

7/19/2005 9:18:06 PM

It wouldn't be so bad as long as the muslims don't take over.

7/19/2005 9:20:34 PM

^^ It doesn't matter what I want. It is either in the Constitution or not. And I have yet to have someone point out the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Constitution to me.

[Edited on July 19, 2005 at 9:23 PM. Reason : add]

7/19/2005 9:22:37 PM

hmmmm.... cleargy led prayer. remind me whats so bad about that again? what would be any different if it were a hobo-led prayer? or an amputee-led prayer... or a frog-led prayer... or a moviestar-led prayer...

get the point? it is possible for a clergyman to lead a group of people in a secular prayer (as secular as prayer can get, mind you...)

7/19/2005 9:23:06 PM

Quote :

"It wouldn't be so bad as long as the muslims don't take over."

haha

I wonder what the Christian version of the Taliban would be like.

7/19/2005 9:27:18 PM

Do kids still say the pledge of allegiance in school?

7/19/2005 9:28:05 PM

i never did say it in school. don't even recall it ever being said, either

7/19/2005 9:28:47 PM

we said it every morning until middle school, from middle school up, we had a "moment of silence."

7/19/2005 9:33:17 PM

Quote :

"I wonder what the Christian version of the Taliban would be like."

Southern Baptists

7/19/2005 9:34:23 PM

7/19/2005 9:36:38 PM

I thought you were funny.

7/19/2005 9:37:46 PM

^^ 5 chickens.

7/19/2005 9:39:34 PM

You crack me up dude

7/19/2005 9:40:54 PM

lol

7/19/2005 9:46:27 PM

He was confirmed to the DC Circuit in January 2003. It is doubtful the democrats can play the "THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE!! FILIBUSTER!!!" card. If they approved him then, why not now?

He'll get confirmed.

Next. Rhenquist. Man, we might actually win this culture war.

[Edited on July 19, 2005 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2005 10:13:33 PM

and the spoils will be?

limited rights? worse environment? more civil liberties invaded?

7/19/2005 10:47:26 PM

I'll sacrifice personal freedoms and damn near anything else just to spite the gays and womens.

7/19/2005 10:49:09 PM

Funny, we'll have to go back to Europe to escape religious persecution.

7/19/2005 10:51:57 PM

Quote :

"and the spoils will be? limited rights? worse environment? more civil liberties invaded?"

Freedom of religion instead of freedom from religion - equal rights for unborn Americans. Sounds good to me.

7/19/2005 10:52:52 PM

ahaha shit's gonna come full circle

7/19/2005 10:53:15 PM

thats CRAZY TALK, wolfpk2K

7/19/2005 10:53:51 PM

freedom from religion -- sounds good to me

7/19/2005 10:57:48 PM

Quote :

"a secular prayer "

uhhhhhhh....

huh?

Quote :

"Southern Baptists "

shit, i'm a southern baptist. most of them aren't crazy. most of the crazy ones are the smaller denominations (although i've certainly met some crazy southern baptists...don't get me wrong.)

7/19/2005 10:59:23 PM

Quote :

" 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 o 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith o 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General * 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President * Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC o 1986-89, Associate o 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. s 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 EPA’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)."

This guy fucking sucks.

7/19/2005 10:59:52 PM

Quote :

"freedom from religion -- sounds good to me"

Great, get a Constitutional Amendment passed then.

7/19/2005 11:02:26 PM

So you believe the teachings of Christianity should have dominion over all United States citizens, or am I just misunderstanding your intentions?

7/19/2005 11:04:40 PM

Where in the consititution did it say that we are forced to pray and such? Can you cite it please?

7/19/2005 11:04:46 PM

^^ Misunderstanding. The religion in public life question is a spectrum, it is not a multiple choice question where the only answers are "theocracy" or "complete separation".

7/19/2005 11:07:10 PM

Well what does the consititution say about it?

Oh, not a damn thing? Then why would we need to amend it?

7/19/2005 11:10:10 PM

Quote :

"I wonder what the Christian version of the Taliban would be like."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_21/b3934001_mz001.htm

7/19/2005 11:11:01 PM

Quote :

" Church and State: An Introductory Quiz Before each number write T (True), F (False) or U (Uncertain). 1. Before the Constitution was adopted, a Virginia or Maryland citizen had to pay taxes to help support the Anglican Church whether the citizen belonged to it or not. 2. George Washington did not believe that the United States government was founded on the Christian religion. 3. The Constitution forbids the worship of more than one god. 4. The Constitution requires a candidate for public office to be a member of an established religion. 5. The word "God" does not appear in the Constitution. 6. The facts that a) "In God We Trust" appears on all U.S. currency and b) "under God" is part of the Pledge of Allegiance demonstrate that the founders of the U.S. believed in God. 7. The Constitution permits a public school to conduct a non-denominational prayer. 8. The Constitution does not permit a public school student to pray in school. 9. A school system may require science instruction that includes teaching "alternative theories" to evolution. 10. Public financing for a church, synagogue, or mosque building is constitutional."

Quote :

"The founders thus produced a secular constitution guaranteeing "the free exercise" of religion but favoring none and saying nothing about God. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli included the statement that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion." President George Washington approved this treaty, and the Senate supported it unanimously."

[Edited on July 19, 2005 at 11:16 PM. Reason : http://www.teachablemoment.org/high/churchstate.html]

7/19/2005 11:14:49 PM

Quote :

"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"

I cant believe this stuff is still in the talking points considering Kelo is fresh in everyone's mind.

7/19/2005 11:16:37 PM

Quote :

"Great, get a Constitutional Amendment passed then."

I wasn't aware a constitutional amendment was required to excise from government religious practices that are only there because of tradition, anyway.

If said practices had to face the Lemon test before being enacted, most wouldn't hold up. Vestiges of religion in our government are solely rooted in the imperfect development of our legal system.

[Edited on July 19, 2005 at 11:24 PM. Reason : dfsd]

7/19/2005 11:21:45 PM

The Constitution does not say "freedom from religion". If you want it to say "freedom from religion" or "Lemon test" or "separation of church and state", then get a Constitutional amendment passed to make it say that. But judicial re-writing is not the appropriate way to do that, and it's about to end.

7/19/2005 11:24:39 PM

Quote :

"I read an article on AOL saying he was a "rock solid conservative""

I'm just glad you guys care more about how well he will interpret the law than you care about how much you agree with him politically and religiously. It's quite a relief.

7/19/2005 11:24:55 PM

Quote :

"The Constitution does not say "freedom from religion"."

The consititution doesn't say anything about religion, how does that argue for school prayer and such?

The consititution doesn't argue in favor of you forcing your religion on people.

7/19/2005 11:26:31 PM