Brian ([info]brianmojo) wrote,
2005-07-20 14:04:00
  • Previous
  • Memorize
  • Share
  • Next

John Roberts Nominated by Bush

Well, he's done it. Bush has proposed his nominee to replace moderate Sandra Day O'Connor. And that nominee is...!

...a far right-wing lawyer and corporate lobbyist named John Roberts who opposes clean air and a woman's right to choose.

I know I have many people of differing idealogues who read this journal, so I'm not going to take it any further than that, suffice to say that if you want to let your senator know that you oppose John Roberts' nomination to the supreme court, this link makes that really easy. If you don't oppose John Roberts' nomination, then feel free not to follow the link.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 10 comments

[info]whaler

July 20 2005, 20:17:22 UTC 6 years ago

he's catholic too. yipes.

[info]cleanbc

July 20 2005, 20:20:02 UTC 6 years ago

Not that I'm not wicked liberal, and I do value my right to choose, but when I got that letter from MoveOn, I wondered if it wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction by those MoveOn people, and would have happened to any justice Bush would have chosen.

I guess I just don't trust any news source at all anymore, because I've read moderately conservative sources (a friend of mine at UPenn's blog) kind of liking him, but being mostly lukewarm, the NYTimes (which a conservative friend of mine at BC calls an ultra-liberal rag) was optimistic despite his conservatism, and then MoveOn and other liberal sources are bashing him, but don't really know what's going on. I even got an email from the HRC saying that they don't know much, and that he doesn't have a paper trail on LGBT issues, but oh yeah, we should definitely donate to their cause so they can lobby against him.

I dunno...

[info]brianmojo

July 20 2005, 20:29:23 UTC 6 years ago

Hm, fair enough. I kind of got the same impression myself, however upon considering it I felt that supreme court justice is such an important position that I wouldn't want anyone but a moderate on the court (that even rules out an ultra-liberal). I'd rather have someone who took each case by its own merits than applied some pre-set ideology to it. That's the main reason that I sent in a letter of protest.

And I considered not posting this, but supreme court justices stay in their position for a looong, long time, so I figured it would be best to at least start a discussion and raise peoples' awareness rather than not saying anything at all.

[info]cleanbc

July 20 2005, 20:51:30 UTC 6 years ago

And I considered not posting this, but supreme court justices stay in their position for a looong, long time, so I figured it would be best to at least start a discussion and raise peoples' awareness rather than not saying anything at all.

No, yeah, definitely post it, I totally agree with that. Plus, I'm a discussion whore, so I like it. I think maybe I've been watching too much of the Daily Show, and it's made me jaded about the media.

[info]katens

July 20 2005, 22:45:07 UTC 6 years ago

(this is me trying to be objective.) from what i understand, he is personally against abortion, but is NOT looking to overturn roe v wade because it is the "settled law of the land." that seems to be the liberals' biggest fear, so i thought that was a nice compromise. you knew bush would nominate someone pro-life, so at least it's one who recognises the possible disastrous results from making abortion illegal. (to be honest, it's my favourite compromise too. while i am heavily pro-life in all situations, i also think that it would be horrible society-wise to repeal roe v. wade.)

and we all know that moveon will have a knee-jerk negative reaction to everything georgie does; that's just what they do.

[info]psiphon

July 20 2005, 23:15:54 UTC 6 years ago

The supreme court is a cesspool of corruption and bad ideas. It always has been and it trickles down into every level of the American justice system. They do not do their job of interpreting the constitution, because they are all, even the moderates, bound by partisan and ideal concepts that they are not willing to overlook.

I vote we go with my plan of getting rid of that awful thing... what do they call it? Oh yeah, GOVERNMENT.

[info]travelingjack

July 21 2005, 00:13:20 UTC 6 years ago

ummm, maybe you overlooked the supreme court chapter in your highschool federal government class. They are placed in a position of power for life, or until they step down, that means that they can act as individuals. They dont have to answer to a party, if they vote against their party's platform, they can't get thrown out of office. that is why ever supreme court judge slowly becomes moderate throughout their turn in power, Rehnquist as even done some pretty liberal things, comparatively to his old party platform in the...what? 1930's? 1940's? whoa. that guys old. either way i dont think saying they are a cesspool of corruption and bad ideas, i think they help with checks and balances very well.

[info]psiphon

July 21 2005, 02:05:46 UTC 6 years ago

Brady you misinterpreted what i mean. but whatever...

BRING IT DOWN!!!
BRING IT ALL DOWN!!!

**hot dog dance**

[info]fattony

July 21 2005, 02:07:05 UTC 6 years ago

What about Ruth who says the constitution is essentially a document frozen in time? Does it sound like she holds the constitution in high regards?

[info]travelingjack

July 21 2005, 07:13:25 UTC 6 years ago

she's THE fucking BADER, comeon, no one argued about darth vader's moral compass with the empire, leave The Bader be!
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…