Considerably ironic, on the same week Eric Robert Rudolph, the right-wing, anti-choice killer is sentenced to life in prison, his apparent ideological twin is named as a Supreme Court nominee by President Bush. Only careful scrutiny will reveal whether Roberts will protect the right to choose, but looking at his obvious associations with radical, violent, anti-choice groups it appears that this is not the case.
Those who know John G. Roberts, Jr. say deep in his heart, he DOES want to overturn Roe v. Wade. For a jurist with almost no record and a known history of backing anti-abortion terror groups, an assurance may not be enough. Senators need to delve deeply into this man's personality and character. The hearings and process should be lengthy and not hurried, as some out of the mainstream politicians have suggested. Since Sandra Day O'Connor has pledged to remain on the Court until her successor is confirmed, there is no reason to rush such an important vote with such longstanding implications.
Democrats need to assure themselves that this man will preserve Roe before they allow him to proceed. Moderate Republicans like Specter, Snowe, Chafee, and the like need to consider carefully the implications of their vote, if it is found that Roberts is a radical, activist, anti-choice character. If this is the case, Republican moderates need to stand up and show backbone by rejecting a nominee who will cause a change in the court and the law that a massive majority of Americans do not support. It is not simply enough to defer to the President in his decision. The Senate is co-equal in the decision and if Roberts is not the man for the job, Republicans, as well as Democrats, have the obligation to the American people to send this nominee back and ask President Bush to nominate someone more in the mainstream.
Balletshooz
Staff Writer,
Rights and freedoms Coalition
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - rbp0554
I went to the NOW website... As I've said in other, related threads... his abortion record is cause for concern... However, I've called the other side on playing up the positive and playing down the negative, so I should mention that this article does the opposite.
Hopefully he'll leave Roe alone... but I'm not holding my breath.
- RBP
2 - billy
In all fairness if he is on the side of Operation Rescue than he is a danger to Roe.
3 - Dave Nalle
>>The questions linger, why would one go out of their way to write a legal brief defending domestic terrorists and provide them aid and comfort?<<
Roberts didn't file this brief for himself as you imply, he did it for the Solictor General's office. It represents their views and the views of the administration at that time, not necessarily his.
I can already see you've got your disinformation talking points all geared up, but wouldn't it have been better to actually tell the truth?
Dave
4 - billy
amicus briefs are optional. there is no need to file them unless someone really lights a fuse under you about the issue. i would like to know why that was filed and who pushed for it to be filed. i hope they grill him on it because that is unacceptable as far as i can tell.
5 - copper
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.
6 - billy
"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.
7 - GPW
Would you please provide a direct link to the brief itself, rather than to the NOW summary of the brief?
8 - Dave Nalle
>>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
9 - billy
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.
10 - Dave Nalle
>>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
11 - billy
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.
12 - lefty
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.
13 - Al Barger
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."
14 - Dave Nalle
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
15 - Al Barger
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.
16 - Randy Kirk
***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.
17 - Al Barger
"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.
18 - Don Spitz
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.
19 - rbp0554
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
20 - billy
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.
21 - Mark Adams
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.
22 - Mark Adams
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.
23 - Nancy
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.
24 - Dave Nalle
>>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
25 - Mark Adams
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.