Blogcritics: Comments on GOP Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts, Providing Aid and Comfort to Terrorists?

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:39:38 EDT

Finally, we agree somewhat, Dave. I don't like this ... it humanizes your caricature, although I still don't care what you believe in :) I definitely think Rand has some crypto-fascist elements to her work, especially her fiction. I think a lot of that is borrowed from her crude mis-interpretation of Nietzsche. Rand was someone with no academic training in philosophy or evidence of any reading knowledge of it who much preferred creating a cult-like following based on her own thought, complete with official lexicons defining her views on every aspect of political and social life and publications to define what Objectivists think of any one issue. The irony of a "philosophy of human freedom" that is so fundamentally unfree in its intellectual approach and attitude is apparently lost on sheep-like outcasts who want a form of immature, fake rebellion that rebels against nothing and advances nothing and no one through its ideology. The irony of propagandist titles like "For the New Intellectual" targeted toward people who don't read apparently doesn't register to people who think this sort of group-speak is "A = A." Now to go up even another level of misguidedness, I don't think Al's reading comprehension of Rand's cheap, anti-intellectual pseudo-philosophy allows him to be Randian either. He's clearly even more authoritarian conservative than even she is. That is all.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:23:35 EDT

I don't think Al is actually a Randite. Most Libertarians I know aren't Rand fans. Her philosophy tends to be much more supportive of authoritarian conservatism than of real Libertarianism. Dave

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Sun, 31 Jul 2005 20:19:24 EDT

Al, why be "reluctantly" pro-choice? Give into all your fears and hatred since you already wear them on your sleeve. You're fooling no one with this Libertarian thing -- just give it up. A consistent libertarian in the mold of Mill would support using an activist reading of the Constitution to expand liberties wherever possible. A genuine libertarian doesn't just draw the line at the "Original intent" of what protections were relevant at the framing of the Constitution. I know utilitarian moral theory doesn't interest an Ayn Rand reader, but I don't think your hero Rand would be ambivalent at all about whether the government should prohibit abortion. Be consistent if you insist on being ridiculous. That is all.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:46:54 EDT

Some of those environmentalists would gladly call themselves terrorists. That's what they aspire to be. But I'm with you on the nonsense. I also find it really tedious to see people on the left or the right just parroting things they picked up from talking points or from other blogs or from the newspaper without putting a minute's worth of original, creative thought into what they post. Dave

Comment by Mark Adams

Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:01:52 EDT

I'm not against "talking points." I'm opposed to "nonsense points." Nothing in this blog entry makes sense. Roberts would have put Rudolph in jail had he been the judge in that case. Also, I don't call environmentalists terrorists simply because a few spike trees or burn Hummers.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:54:20 EDT

>>Comparing Roberts to "Eric Robert Rudolph, the right-wing, anti-choice killer" is desperate, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. They have Latin phrases for this sort of attack, but I think everyone gets the point.<< This is exactly the comparison and argument which the left wing talking-points sites are urging people to make on the web. You can already see it spreading through the left half of the blogosphere with multiple cloned articles totally misrepresenting Roberts record and accusing him of basically supporting clinic bombings as this post does. It's a typical smear campaign and we should remember that Balletshooz is part of the hierarchy of disinformation merchants. Dave

Comment by Nancy

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:15:06 EDT

Roberts, from all I can find out, filed the brief as part of his job. When left to himself, thus far he rules strictly according to law, and leaves his own feelings or inclinations out of it. This is good; this is what we want in a judge: someone who does not 'legislate' from the bench, as they say. I think Robers is a winner, a most unexpected, pleasant surprise, & I hope the Dems have the good sense not only to vet him but to go ahead & confirm. He's the best we're gonna get out of Smirk.

Comment by Mark Adams

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:39:17 EDT

The part that is between <> should be... "the amicus brief he went out of his way to file on behalf of Operation Rescue, an organization in which many of its members and/or sympathizers have the stated goals of: breaking the law with violence (including blowing up abortion clinics), killing and intimidating doctors who perform abortions, and intimidating women and blocking their access to the clinics that provide abortions. Such activities border on domestic terrorism and their activities should not have been supported by this candidate." Again, that's not Operation Rescue. The comparison doesn't work.

Comment by Mark Adams

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:37:39 EDT

Your phrasing leaves much to be desired: <> That some of its members or sympathizers act in a manner contrary to the organization's practices does not make the organization an agent of domestic terrorism. That's plainly absurd. Roberts never argued for the killing of abortion doctors, etc. That's not baggage. Comparing Roberts to "Eric Robert Rudolph, the right-wing, anti-choice killer" is desperate, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. They have Latin phrases for this sort of attack, but I think everyone gets the point.

Comment by billy

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:36:31 EDT

quite ironic that someone would care about unborn cells and call it murder, but in the same sentence call for the death of living people. some culture of life.

Comment by rbp0554

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:24:46 EDT

And I'm sure in your world evolution doesn't exist either. That's what the world needs (with almost 7 billion people and counting)... more unwanted children. You sir are a genius. - RBP

Comment by Don Spitz

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:15:56 EDT

Hopefully the murder of unborn children will once again be illegal and those who commit these homicides will be on death row where they belong.

Comment by Al Barger

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:02:40 EDT

"Democrats need to assure themselves that this man will preserve Roe before they allow him to proceed." Here's the thing, though: the Democrats don't get to decide that. The American people voted for the president, who gets to pick the justices. Furthermore, they have given the Republicans a significant majority in the US Senate, where the confirmation vote takes place. The Democrats have every right to vote against Roberts for any or no reason, but unless they can convince several Republicans to take their side, then they are powerless. Ha, ha, ha, I say. I don't much care for the Republican Party, particularly at the higher levels, but there is some satisfaction in watching them making the pinkos crazy. Seeing people speaking as dishonestly and presumptively as in this post left sputtering in their impotence does my heart good. This is particularly so given their insistence that Roe is some special holy piece of unquestionable jurisprudence, when it is one of the worst decisions on any kind of intellectual or professional grounds ever to come out of the SCOTUS. Roe was just garbage as a legal decision, even if you're pro-choice, as I (reluctantly) am.

Comment by Randy Kirk

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:11:44 EDT

***Operation Rescue, a known domestic terrorist organization many of whose members have the stated goals of: breaking the law with violence (including blowing up abortion clinics), killing and intimidating doctors who perform abortions, and intimidating women and blocking their access to the clinics that provide abortions.*** Where do you get this information? You say these are stated goals. Back it up.

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:19:52 EDT

Yeah, I know. I don't know if this Roberts guy will be any good or not- he's pretty much of a stealth candidate, but dumb cheap attacks like this will ultimately only help him be confirmed more easily.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:11:44 EDT

That was a bad one indeed, Al. Doesn't get much more partisan or biased - but then the title should have tipped us off. Dave

Comment by Al Barger

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:07:56 EDT

Ah, Balletshooz presents direct evidence that he's a dishonest demagogue: "the same week Eric Robert Rudolph, the right wing, anti-abortion killer is sentenced to life in prison, his apparent ideological twin is named as a Supreme Court nominee."

Comment by lefty

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:24:17 EDT

Personally there are only a few things that come out of Bush's mouth that I believe. One is that Scalia is his favorite justice. I believe this man Roberts will be much like Scalia, which would be a danger to the country if his nomination is not stopped.

Comment by billy

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:23:36 EDT

im sure if he is adamantly against roe, he will want to "change it back" to the way it should have been before there was a right to choose.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:16:49 EDT

>>before he was bound by the law. now he must change it.<< Not to be pedantic, but the role of the Supreme Court is not to change law, but to review and assess it relative to the Constitution. The changing law thing is what's been the problem in recent years and what people have been complaining about from both sides. If as an apellate court judge he respected the roe decision, then why as a SC justice would he not also respect the prior decisions of the court? This is actually a big issue, because a number of the justices argue that they should base decisions on prior decisions as much as the Constitution - this is in a large part what led to the recent Kelo decision which has been so unpopular. Dave

Comment by billy

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:10:10 EDT

well see if that comes to pass. if he is only instructed to take a position then it shouldnt be used against him. but, his answer re: abortion in his appelate nomination wont suffice, since before he was bound by the law. now he must change it.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:07:22 EDT

>>amicus briefs are optional.<< They're not optional for the staff lawyer told by his boss to file them - which is the position Roberts was in. Dave

Comment by GPW

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:02:32 EDT

Would you please provide a direct link to the brief itself, rather than to the NOW summary of the brief?

Comment by billy

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:58:04 EDT

"Roberts will be in by late Sept" last time i checked there were only 55 republicans. how are they going to do that? change the rules? oh i forgot they already tried and failed.

Comment by copper

Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:55:59 EDT

Already frothing and foaming from the mouth huh? What ya scared of here? Roberts will be in by late Sept and it scares you, don't it? Why do you leftists have to make stuff up and twist things like this? My goodness, he nomination is less than 12 hours old and the attacks and smear hounds are out in force.