It's amazing. News just broke that John G. Roberts was going to be the President's nominee for the open Supreme Court seat, and already, within a matter of hours, the spokesmen of the extreme left have their talking points in place and are starting to spread a campaign of lies and disinformation on the web - expect to see this campaign hit the major media tomorrow.
Here's a sample of what you can expect them to tell you, taken from a recent comments on the web:
From Blogcritics: He's in favor of reducing Congress' power to protect the environment, and he said that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional.
- This is actually entirely untrue. The argument he made in the cases referred to here was that the people arguing for expansion of Endangered Species protections did not have standing to appear in court because they were not materially impacted by damage done to the species in question. His repeated position on this kind of case seems to be that if you don't live where the endangered species is, or have some sort of direct relationship with it, then you can't sue to have it protected.
From Blogcritics: Are we supposed to go back to the days of slavery, child labor and NO women's rights just to stay within the strict letter of one document?
- That 'one document' is the Constitution on which our entire government is based. It's kind of important. As for his position on slavery, child labor and womens rights, he's never come out in favor of the first two or in opposition of the last. This complaint presumably comes from the fact that he has consistently argued against preferential treatment policies in business - which are essentially examples of institutionalized racial descrimination.
From Daily Kos: Some kid had a French Fry in the Subway, and there was some silly rule that said you couldn't and some Washington Burocratic snafu that siad he would have to go to jail for it. And long story short, The French Fry Judge ruled for the stupid burocratic rule over the kid. The kid went to jail.
- Actually, in this civil suit where the girl's family sued a restaurant for having her handcuffed by a security guard after she stole some French Fries, the girl was not sent to jail and Roberts' decision had nothing to do with incarcerating her. His ruling was merely that you could handcuff a 12 year old to keep her from running away when you caught her stealing and that you couldn't be sued for doing it.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Temple Stark
And, of course, why should we trust your judgment anymore than those you cherry-pick quote?
Someone should do a "my perfect judge" post and see where they end up.
2 - rbp0554
Dave:
You may be right. Even as a liberal I'll admit... many of the articles I've read on him so far (including those in the Washington Post which is no righty paper) use the term "fair-minded". His comments about abortion when he worked for previous administrations trouble me though.
- RBP
3 - KC
"Most of his record is as a private law attorney or working for the government, and a lot of that work has to be discounted because he was just doing what he was told and not really expressing himself."
Gee, you don't think this could be EXACTLY what made him their man for the job do you?
4 - rbp0554
Temple:
You have a point. I noticed it too but didn't feel like starting WW III (it's late on the east coast).
- RBP
5 - Dave Nalle
>>And, of course, why should we trust your judgment anymore than those you cherry-pick quote?<<
It's only been a few hours. I just used the quotes which I came on which I was able to actually research. You can check the research on them in the links I provided. There was no 'cherry picking' involved, but feel free to make all the ignorant accusations you like. You'll fit right in with the political mood of the time.
Did you even notice that I didn't endorse Roberts in any way in my article?
>>Someone should do a "my perfect judge" post and see where they end up.<<
You'll have a hard time finding anyone who's read up on Roberts who finds him to be perfect, regardless of their political persuasion.
Dave
6 - Dave Nalle
>>You may be right. Even as a liberal I'll admit... many of the articles I've read on him so far (including those in the Washington Post which is no righty paper) use the term "fair-minded". <<
IMO the Post is about the only 'fair-minded' paper of any note in this country these days.
>>His comments about abortion when he worked for previous administrations trouble me though.<<
He came out definitively in his last set of hearings to say that those statements were only what he was told to say and no more and no less, and that they did not represent his own opinions. Can't ask for more than that.
Dave
7 - rbp0554
I got a slightly different impression from what I read a few hours ago (more like it wasn't clear).
- RBP
8 - Dave Nalle
That his abortion position wasn't clear? How can you get clearer than the statement I quote in the article - "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
I guess he could have gone on to say that he liked to drink stem cells and use fetuses in decorating projects, but that's a bit over the top.
The accepted wisdom seems to be that he'd like abortion to return to being a policy set by the individual states and that he's against partial birth abortion, but that he's not going to seek out opportunities to override Roe v. Wade. So he could be more pro-life, but as conservative judges go he's better than most.
Dave
9 - rbp0554
Well you know me Dave I don't drink stem cells... I main-line them like a heroin addict. And I have lots of fetuses hanging up in my house.
What I'm saying is... he was under considerable pressure to say that during the hearings if he wanted the job. It's kind of like those waivers that Rove signed that Cooper and Miller wouldn't accept.
- RBP
10 - Dave Nalle
So you're suggesting that Roberts is a liar and committed perjury infront of a Senate Committee? Wow, then he really shouldn't be on the SC.
Sorry, I have just a little more faith in our system than that. He may have been under pressure, but he wouldn't get anywhere by lying. And there really isn't anything significant in his past record to tar him with the pro-life brush.
Dave
11 - Nancy
From what I've read & heard so far, everyone (including me) is being cautiously optimistic. Reid didn't leap up screaming, & neither have I so far. Of course they're going to check out his past performances, but I personally (at this point) think Bush picked a decent guy who's definitely qualified, given his experience both as a judge & arguing before the S.C., even if he is a tad more conservative than I might like. Bush IS of the conservative party, so it's not like it's a surprise. I didn't expect him to pick Abby Hoffman, after all! What does surprise me is that he picked someone who seems to be relatively reasonable, even on the Roe v Wade issue: no, he's not a wild supporter of it, but he did say it's the law & he supports the law. I'd rather have have someone who will uphold the basics & not go making crazy decisions like the one in Rhode Island. We'll see.
12 - bah
big difference between an apellate judge, that has to uphold precedent:and a Supreme that sets it
13 - Nancy
I still think he's gonna be an OK choice. He doesn't have a record of being someone who's tearing to stick his neck out & deconstruct the constitution to impose his personal views on others.
14 - bhw
bah has hit the nail on the head.
When Roberts said, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," he couldn't have been referring to what he would do if on the Supreme Court. If Roe v. Wade gets challenged and taken up the the S.C., he's under no obligation to "apply the precedent." His job will be to re-evaluate the precedent. And since he has fought against abortion rights in the past, that makes me nervous.
15 - andy marsh
You know - I wrote this over a year ago...dealing with this...you can't tell how a justice is gonna vote based on who nominated them for the position.
16 - Nancy
But NO ONE can be predicted as to what they'll do down the road. People change, people's ideas change. It wouldn't matter if this was Thurgood Marshall, you just can't predict what anyone will do once they get up there. Look at all those who were appointed by a president of one stripe, & then morphed into something completely opposite - I believe Earl Warren is the most prominent exemplar of this. There are no guarantees; just indications. At this point, I think he's as good as any, and a lot better than most, considering it's Bush who picked him.
17 - bhw
It wouldn't matter if this was Thurgood Marshall, you just can't predict what anyone will do once they get up there. Look at all those who were appointed by a president of one stripe, & then morphed into something completely opposite
And then look at Scalia and Thomas, who have been perfectly predictable.
Some of the justices have been predictable, others haven't. We don't know about this new one, but the descriptions I've read of him as being, "very, very conservative" are of concern to me.
18 - Nancy
I don't say this isn't a valid concern; of course it is; but I don't think it's so bad, either, based on what I know so far (emphasize that last subclause). I don't think Dems/liberals should go knee-jerk screaming out to protest; they'll lose their credibility for a REAL fight, if need be. Y'gotta pick your fights, not take on anything that comes along.
19 - David Demchuk
The facts on the "French Fries" case from today's Washington Post.
Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writer
On the Supreme Court, John G. Roberts
would be called on to deal with some of the
loftiest issues of U.S. jurisprudence. During
his career in the District, he ruled on a
case that hinged on one of the simplest of
human actions: the eating of a single
french fry.
Last October, Judge Roberts spoke for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
in the case of the girl who was arrested
at the age of 12 after she was seen popping
a french fry into her mouth in a Metro
station.
Roberts, writing for himself and for two
other judges, upheld the constitutionality
of the Oct. 23, 2000, arrest of Ansche Hedgepeth.
Her encounter with the Metro
Transit Police drew national attention and
was frequently condemned as an example
of law enforcement excess. The policy that
led to her being handcuffed was later
changed.
While upholding the legality of the Metro
police action, Roberts " who was nominated
yesterday to fill the high court vacancy
created by the retirement of Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor " showed that he
did not necessarily give it his personal
stamp of approval.
“No one is very happy about the events
that led to this litigation,” Roberts wrote
in his opinion.
20 - Nancy
That's what I mean: the guy addresses the issues - in the french fry case, the girl WAS out of order & the arrest, however heavy-handed, was legal, so her mother did not get the huge payout she was looking for in the lawsuit. He also noted it WAS a ridiculous & stupid over-response & policy needed to be changed, which it was, but he issued his opinion as just that, & didn't try to incorporate it somehow into his ruling. Yeah, the more I check this guy out, the better I think it will be. He'll do well for all of us. I think Smirk did well in this. Very well. I'm astonished.
21 - Branwen
Roberts' biggest advantage is not having a body of opinions that anyone can hold him to. He'll be confirmed, if only because the Dems know that Bush could have nominated someone worse (at least as far as anyone can tell).
Still, his position on environmental concerns is alarming, especially as long as we have a conservative Congress and administration.
>>His repeated position on this kind of case seems to be that if you don't live where the endangered species is, or have some sort of direct relationship with it, then you can't sue to have it protected.<<
Think about that. I don't live in Alaska so I don't have a direct relationship with seals or wolves. Does that mean I shouldn't care whether they're allowed to exist or not? Besides, every time they hack away at what little is left of the earth's wilderness, it impacts all of us. Weather patterns change; the air becomes more polluted, waterways are destroyed, etc. Maybe it isn't the place of Americans to protect the environment, but we do live here. It's our responsibility as humans, not just Americans.
22 - billy
dont forget this one:
"he gives aid and comfort to domestic terrorists"
he went out of his way to file an amicus for free on behalf of operation rescue
23 - Maynard
That is the heart of the matter. This persona has all of 20 months record on the bench. Prior to that, his entire carreer was as an advocate. One of the things both sides have said that was "good" about him was that he does what he is told to do very well.
My question, with no judicial record to speak of, and with a reputation for doing what he is told, who is telling him now?
I don't neccesarily think he is a bad pick, or that he would be a bad Justice, per se. I just believe he was picked for being a yes man, and specifically for having no record on the bench that he could be held accountable for.
24 - andy marsh
Maynard - I'd say...if he gets appointed...that the constitution will be telling him what to do!
25 - Natalie Davis
"He'll do well for all of us."
Speak for yourself; he *may* do well for *you*.