THREE STRIKES AGAINST JOHN ROBERTS

Do you not think there were just as many leftist organizations that "lined up in lock step" to defeat his nomination?

 

More stuff from the Constitution Party. They never get tired of attacking other Christians for not believing the way they do on political issues and they have perpetual targets because no one believes the way they do.

Settled Law merely means that it is the current prevailing doctrine and nothing else, which the author of this op-ed must know since he is a lawyer himself.

Let's face it: the Constitution Party lost the election and have little chance of ever winning an election. The internet gives them an outlet from the wilderness but their works merely confirm that they belong in the wilderness, world without end.

 

I still am somewhat skeptical of him and Ann Coulter was right to caution us to not be too uncritical in supporting his nomination but I was impressed that he has received Phyllis Schlafly's endorsement. If Chuck Baldwin and the CP'ers think she is "Establishment" they are truly nuts.

 

Your right Phyllis Schlafly is NOT "Establishment", I think she has a great organization! From what I know about Roberts, he appears to be a good conservative choice, but because he has only been a judge for two years there is not alot to know about him. I just pray that if confirmed, he is a good conservative justice and will work to restore our Constitutional Republic!

I agree that Coulter made some very valid arguments that should have conservatives watching Roberts closely and I also didn't like it when I heard Roberts refer to our system of government as a "constitutional democracy".

 

JG,

I remain both hopeful and disappointed in the choice of Roberts. If the President has picked a truly conservative stealth candidate who makes it under the Left's radar screen, good for him. But Roberts being unknown means that the President's supporters on Court appointments have no basis to get excited about him either. I think that the CP would be unhappy about a long list of choices that conservatives could get excited about. One in particular that I suspect they would find something to complain about is Michael W. McConnell who, IMO, is the best pick that Bush could make.

 

Here they are:

MoveOn.org

People for the American Way

United for Peace and Justice

Alliance for Justice

ACLU

National Lawyers Guild

Center for Constitutional Rights

Earthjustice

NARAL

National Urban League

 

fromtheright, I agree McConnell would have been and excellent choice, I also think Janice Rodgers Brown would be a good justice.

 

If there can be a positive, optimistic spin on his "settled law" comment, perhaps it is that in his role as an appellate judge he would not have been in a position to do anything about overturning it (Roe). As a member of the Supreme Court, he could do so.

 

And, as to item # 3 in the OP (3. Does Roberts believe in the form of government that the Constitution guarantees?) the fact that he calls it a constitutional democracy doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in the guarantees of that constitution. Yes, his statement means he should have re-taken Poli Sci 101 or had a better professor (or just read The Federalist) but it is ridiculous to assert that he doesn't believe in our form of government, only that he doesn't understand what it should be called. Ours has been called a representative democracy and many other names. Yes, understanding what it is is important. It is more important to understand its basics. If he is a conservative jurist, then I have no doubts that he understands its basics. Not having the name right doesn't mean he's not a conservative. Count on Baldwin and company to dig for such as a reason to oppose someone.

 

So, either he thinks we are a Democracy, or else he "should have re-taken Poli Sci 101".

Supreme court material? Makes me a bit nervous.

 

As to the "three strikes":
Answers 1 and 3 are yes. So, those are eliminated... leaving one strike.

Now, this won't be popular, but the Constitution does not prevent abortion, it is just as wrong for us to claim it does as it is for the left to claim that the Constitution guarantees them. The Constitution is silent on the issue, which ensures that it should be a state issue. (Unless you think that abusing the Elastic Clause is acceptable.)

If we want a judge to actually hold to original intent and to properly rule on the issue of abortion, that judge will overturn Roe. However, the judge will not rule in such a way as to make abortions illegal. Rather, he/she will ensure that the issue is left to each of the several states to determine for themselves.

So, I assume that number 2 can be eliminated as a strike as well. So, to continue the baseball terminology, we have 3 balls and no strikes. Looks like Roberts is about to get a "free pass" to me.

 

It's unfortunate that we're all going to have to listen to and watch this man be vilified and slandered the way he will be.

I believe he will eventually be confirmed, but not before liberal democrats try to pile on enough dirt to make a mountain.

 

JB,

I think you're exactly right on the Constitution and abortion. I do hope, however, and I think this is the point made with the "settled law" quote, that he doesn't consider himself bound to Roe as a Supreme Court justice. But as to point number two itself, again, I think you're exactly right. Overturning Roe would send it back to the states where it should be.

 

It would be good if you are correct, but keep your eye on Kennedy and Schumer. They'll be very agressive and totally nasty. IMHO

 

Maybe. But it seems more likely that they realize they won't be able to portray him as "extreme" and use their filibuster without the so called "nuclear option" being invoked. This they want to avoiud if at all possible.

They'll still pound him unmercifully in committee.

Unless or until they fear they will create a backlash in the electorate. But they've never shown themselves to be particularly perceptive in that area.