Conservative Activists: Roberts - No

[Dr. Shane]

COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America... This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Coulter wants a conservative activist, no doubt. Sounds like Bush has choosen an originalist. Neither the Left or the Right are going to be happy.

[Neil D]

Ok, so let me get this straight....

Ann Coulter is opposed to Roberts....

Matt Drudge is reporting her opposition, so presumably he doesn't like him...

For sake of argument, we will say the ultra conservative and the moderately conservative don't like him...

Now on the left we have

Moveon.org want to stop his nomination

Liberaltopia is looking at him and saying "eh, what?"

Seems to me both ends of the spectrum don't like him...but the middle is not enamered with him either....

Conclusion: Prolly this man is ok, however not all the votes are in, and it is a bit too soon after the nomination to pass judgement as to whether he is the man for the job.

[Neil D]

[:"blue"] Ok, so let me get this straight...The White House is stonewalling requests for papers that Roberts written up during his years in Regan and Bush I Presidencys, nor any papers written before the supreme court. What do they want from the Senate ? a rubber stamp of approval?

And what is this about Roberts being a 97-98 "steering committee" member of the Federalist Society, a group of ultra-conservative lawyers who committed to counter the percieved liberal leanings of the court. I am begining to believe there is something fishy with this nomination.

[/]

White House Warns Dems on Roberts Papers

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

Monday, July 25, 2005

(07-25) 18:30 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The White House on Monday warned Democrats not to make extensive requests for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' legal writings in previous Republican administrations, saying many such documents are "out of bounds."

Separately, the Supreme Court nominee waved off questions about whether he was a member of a conservative legal organization. Roberts, on his fourth day paying courtesy calls on senators, hasn't answered questions since President Bush announced him — as is typical for nominees — and one Democratic senator said the matter wouldn't affect the confirmation.

With Bush's first chance to shape the Supreme Court at stake, the White House is hoping to avoid the kind of showdown with Democrats over document requests that has stymied Senate confirmation of some of the president's other high-profile nominees. Asked repeatedly to say whether the administration was open to making Roberts' writings as a former administration lawyer available, White House press secretary Scott McClellan avoided saying "no" outright.

"We want to work with the members of the Senate to make sure that they have the appropriate information so that they can do their job," McClellan said.

The issue could be critical as the Senate prepares to decide whether to confirm Roberts as Bush's replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Democrats have offered no indication that they plan an all-out battle against Roberts. But since his two-year tenure on the federal bench has left him with a limited public record, they have hinted they may seek memos, briefs and other documents he wrote while working for two Republican presidents to shed more light on his stands on such key issues as abortion, the environment and federal jurisdiction.

Under President Reagan, Roberts was a lawyer in the White House counsel's office. Under the first President Bush, Roberts was principal deputy solicitor general, a key position in the office that argues cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the administration.

Some records already are publicly available at the Reagan and Bush presidential libraries. Others still need clearance from representatives of the current president and former administrations, as required by law, and archivists.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to make any request. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., not a member of the committee, was the first to urge the White House to release Roberts' written record "in its entirety."

McClellan suggested that many — if not all — such documents would be withheld, saying that past administrations have also concluded they are shielded by attorney-client privilege and privacy.

"We hope people wouldn't make such requests that they know are considered out of bounds and that can't be fulfilled because of those privacy issues," he said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., one of the centrists who stopped an earlier Senate fight over Bush's judicial nominees, urged the White House to be flexible.

"I'd hate to see us get into a battle over whether the administration was going to share documents instead of the basic question of is Judge Roberts deserving of confirmation to be a justice of the United States Supreme Court," Lieberman said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said material written in confidence while serving in an administration has been provided in the past — for instance by Reagan when he nominated William H. Rehnquist for chief justice.

But Norm Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, said Democrats would be making "a stupid tactical error" to demand that all of Roberts' memos be turned over. "It clearly violates the separation of powers," he said.

And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the memos, which require Roberts to argue the position of the administration, aren't likely to be very important "unless it relates to confirming something that becomes a major question."

In preparation for confirmation hearings expected to begin at the end of August or beginning of September, Roberts met Monday with five senators, including Lieberman and Feinstein.

Feinstein emerged impressed with Roberts' ability to rule without "any extraneous points of bias."

"There is not a lot of controversy surrounding him. There just isn't," Feinstein said.

Also Monday, the White House was unable to say definitively whether Roberts was a member of the Federalist Society, an influential legal group formed to counter what its members saw as growing liberalism on the bench.

A 1997-98 leadership directory for the Federalist Society lists Roberts as a steering committee member in the group's Washington chapter, The Washington Post reported. At the time, Roberts was a partner in a private law firm.

[:"red"] Roberts has acknowledged participating in Federal Society events, but McClellan said, [:"red"] [/]"He has no memory of ever joining or paying dues to the Federalist Society." [/][:"blue"] Eh, what is this????? He has no memory of paying....????? perhaps he has no memory! Do you want a Supreme court justice who has no memory of events to be on the court???? [/]

He did not list the Federalist Society in a questionnaire he submitted to the Senate when he was nominated for his Court of Appeals seat in 2001.[:"blue"] Why not???? [/]

"The Republican administration calls for a `fair' confirmation process, but how fair can that process be if the nominee and the White House will not be frank with the American people?" the Democratic National Committee said in an e-mail sent to reporters. [:"blue"] This is becoming a n increasingly valid question! [/]

But Feinstein said she did not ask Roberts about it. "It's not a dispositive question, in my view," she said.

"It's not like being a member of the Communist Party," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who also met with Roberts. [:"blue"] Excuse me, but isn't that like saying "It's ok to have a bull in a china shop?" [/]

[there buster]

These documents are privileged in TWO ways. ONE, they are lawyer-client privilege. Roberts was serving as a lawyer for the White House. TWO, they have executive privilege. The separation of powers means that Congress can't go rummaging through confidential papers from the Executive Branch.

No President has allowed the release of such documents, including President Clinton.

Those who claim to be concerned about civil liberties, ought to care about violating lawyer/client privilege.

The Senators have no right to these documents and they know it. This is propaganda to be swallowed by the partisan and the gullible.

The Federalist Society holds many events which are attended by non-members, for free. Roberts has attended a number of these. This is a public group which advocates reading the Constitution as it was written.

About 5 minutes serious inquiry by a thinking person could take care of these spurious charges.

[Dr. Shane]

Hmmmmmm, what is going on?

CNN AGREES TO AIR BLOODY ABORTION AD ON JUDGE ROBERTS

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group’s that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted abortion clinic bomber, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Dr. Shane]

And from the other extreame:

Conservative Group to Oppose John Roberts

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it was withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[Bravus]

OOK, not exactly the same people, but still: his Roe v Wade opinion means nothing because it was on behalf of a client, but his gay opinion does, though it was also on behalf of a client...

It's gonna be a long fight, I suspect, because the hard right (least inflammatory term I can think of) won't be happy unless they get one of their own, and most of the rest of the country won't be happy if they do... As Neil said, maybe the fact that almost *everyone* is mildly unhappy with Roberts is a good sign. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

As Neil said, maybe the fact that almost *everyone* is mildly unhappy with Roberts is a good sign.

---

Hmmmmm...I thought what I was attempting to point out was that the extreme ends were not happy with Roberts and that he might make it yet and be good for all....Oh well...the end result is the same...everyone in the middle may think that Roberts may be ok....I suspect that he may be a middle of the roader....with maybe some leaning to the Right....It will be interesting to see how he interacts with all the other justices...

[Dr. Shane]

What I observe is that those that want activists judges - either liberal or conservatve - are not happy.

Many liberals want judges they feel sure will uphold Roe v. Wade. They have two big fears. The first is that they fear Roe v. Wade was not made based on good Constitutional law and is thus subject to be reversed. If it were made on good Constitutional law it would not be subject to reversal. Brown v. Board of Education eliminated racial segregation in public education. It was based on good Constitutional law and thus we don't see the black community worried about it being reversed. The second is that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion becomes an issue decided by the people (not the courts), they fear abortion will be made illegal or severely rescricted in the majority of the states. Thus they want an activist liberal judge that will keep abortion out of the hands of the voters.

Many conservatives want exactly the opposite. They want an activist conservative that will not only overturn Row. V Wade but will actually grant Constitutional rights to the unborn fetus. In such cases abortion would still be out of the reach of the voters and the courts would be deciding who could have abortions and who couldn't.

I think we will find out once the hearings start how much of an originalist or constructionalist Roberts is. The Court is not political by design. The Court is simply to interpret the law and decide if laws are Constitutional. The Court is not to debate morality, science or economics.

[Dr. Shane]

Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He opposed Micheal Jackson! <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, work...Michael Jackson

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Roberts wrote: "If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose 'Michael,' as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">