GOD DOESN'T CREATE NATIONS says ROBERTS

http://www.religionjournal.com/showarticle.asp?id=3135

The latest memo to surface shows Judge Roberts cautioned the Reagan administration to quit calling America the "greatest nation God ever created" because, according to Roberts, God did not create nations.

How patriotic!

H0w godly!

Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

Gen 17:5-6 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Exod 34:24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.

And this guy is the choice of CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS?

WHY?

PRO-ABORT ABA GIVES ROBERTS HIGHEST RATING

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/roberts/index.html?section=cnn_latest

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has received the American Bar Association's highest rating for professional qualifications, an important legal and political benchmark, as he prepares for Senate confirmation hearings.

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/014384.html

Most people should be aware that the ABA came out very strongly in favor of abortion several years ago. They are loath to give their support to pro-lifers.

What does that suggest about Judge Roberts?

IS ROBERTS RACIST?

Is this a photo of Judge Roberts' neighborhood?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050817/ap_on_re_us/roberts__upbringing_4

LONG BEACH, Ind. - Like many towns across America, the exclusive lakefront community where Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. grew up during the racially turbulent 1960s and '70s once banned the sale of homes to nonwhites and Jews.

Roberts' criticism of racial "quotas" in some documents from his work as a White House lawyer has alarmed civil rights groups and some Democrats, who say he may be a partisan ... Other memos ... portray an attorney who urged his bosses to restrict affirmative action and Title IX sex discrimination lawsuits.

It is hard to know how much Roberts' upbringing in this northern Indiana community on the shores of Lake Michigan influenced his views. Some say the fact that there were riots and restrictions on home ownership is not relevant at all.

I don't know if Roberts is racist, and certainly being against quotas and "affirmative action" are not proofs of racism, but neighborhood restrictions sure raise eyebrows.

DEMOCRATS WON'T FIGHT ROBERTS

If Judge Roberts is such a strict, constitutionalist, conservative - wouldn't the Democrats fight him tooth and claw? They have been using every trick in the book, and a few not in the book, to stonewall Bush's judicial nominees for the past five years.

Why would they let this one through so easily after fighting so hard against all the others? Shouldn't that raise a red flag in the minds of any thinking conservative?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501433_pf.html

Roberts Unlikely To Face Big Fight

Many Democrats See Battle as Futile

By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writers August 16, 2005

Democrats have decided that unless there is an unexpected development in the weeks ahead, they will not launch a major fight to block the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr., according to legislators, Senate aides and party strategists.

"No one's planning all-out warfare," said a Senate Democratic aide closely involved in caucus strategy on Roberts. For now, the aide said, Democratic strategy is to make it clear Roberts is subject to fair scrutiny while avoiding a pointless conflagration that could backfire on the party. "We're going to come out of this looking dignified and will show we took the constitutional process seriously," the aide said.

TG: The rest of the lengthy article is on the website above, but this makes the point intended.

WAS ROBERTS RIGHT?

*
*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050815/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_4

It looks like Judge Roberts was favoring school prayer here, and maybe he was.

But if you read the article you'll see that, just like the recent ten commandment ruling in Texas, he says they could get prayer legalized if it "worded more carefully to avoid expressing a religious purpose behind the measure."

So the way to get prayer into the schools is to make it non-religious prayer. Non-religious prayer? Think about that a while. Would making prayer non-religious be a good thing for religious liberty?

Does non-religious prayer even make any sense? It's an oxymoron, like "government intelligence".

*******************************

Teno is exactly right, and most "conservatives" will not pick this up, partly because they are too enamored over anything Bush, the GOP and its front organizations, such as the American Center for Law and Justice, tells them.

Similar to the recent Ten Commandment rulings which allowed one non-religious religious display while forbidding another religious religious display, it upholds what is commonly known as "the Lemon Test" - a complete travesty of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has literally trashed the Constitution.

The Lemon test was fabricated in 1971 in Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602). Basically, the test says, "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion."

The problem with any "victory" that religious liberty advocates proclaim with the latest Ten Commandments cases is that it solidifies this precedent and attempts to "protect" religious liberty by making sure that religious displays are "not religious."

So, what Teno insinuates is absolutely correct: by making prayer "non-religious" in the public square is totally detrimental to the concept of religious liberty, let alone the upholding of the original intent of the Constitution (TG: As well as being detrimental to the concept of prayer!).

I encourage you to read a recent editorial that I penned last spring entitled, "Pluralism to Trump Ten Commandments in June", accessible at http://www.reedheustis.com/articles/03072005.htm . You will notice that what I predicted in that article last March has come to pass:

"It is interesting to note that two of the issues to be analyzed by the Court is (1) whether there is a 'secular or religious purpose'; and (2) whether there is an 'endorsement' of religion.

"Although there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids any government from having a 'religious purpose' or 'endorsing religion,' the Court will partly decide the cases on these dubious grounds."

As it turned out the Court indeed decided the cases on these grounds. Therefore, any apparent "victory" for Christian forces are in actuality defeats because the grounds upon which such "victory" was achieved are the enemy's foundation, not genuine Constitutionalism.

Reed R. Heustis, Jr. <><
http://www.constitutionalists.us
http://www.reedheustis.com
Los Angeles County Central Committee Member
California State Central Committee Member
American Independent Party (Calif. Constitution Party)

ROBERTS DEFENDED PORNOGRAPHY!

Every time I think Judge Roberts' record cannot possibly get any worse I come across one like this (thanks to Stephen Hall for this one).

Judge Roberts worked to enable Playboy to keep their smut accessible to CHILDREN. If I didn't see it myself, I wouldn't believe it.

Can any Christian conservatives be so numb between the ears that they will still defend this immoral reprobate?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8506

First Supreme Court Vacancy Test for George W. Bush

Roberts 'Played' for Playboy in SCOTUS Case

by Robert B. Bluey Aug 11, 2005

Bush's pick for the Supreme Court worked for Playboy in high court case.

Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, while serving as the head of Hogan & Hartson’s appellate division, spent about a dozen hours working on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group in a case before the Supreme Court in 1999, his former colleague told HUMAN EVENTS.

Roberts played the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting, preparing Playboy’s lead counsel, Robert Corn-Revere, who worked in Hogan & Hartson’s communications department, for his oral argument before the Supreme Court, Corn-Revere confirmed to HUMAN EVENTS.

Playboy’s case challenged the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required cable TV operators to scramble sexually explicit content or restrict the pornography to hours when children would be unlikely to view it. Playboy won the case, 5-4, much to the consternation of conservatives. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a biting dissent.

Conservatives were dismayed to learn last week that Roberts played a similar role in Romer v. Evans, a landmark homosexual-rights case. Just as in the Playboy case, Roberts assisted with moot court. Romer, however, was a “pro bono” project, whereas Playboy was a paying client.

ROBERTS Says: THAT CONSERVATIVE is "NO FRIEND OF OURS"

Can it get any more obvious than this that Judge Roberts is no friend of conservatives? Judge Roberts gave advice to a pseudo-conservative on how to placate true conservatives.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050811-121556-2116r.htm

As special assistant to the attorney general in the Reagan administration, John G. Roberts Jr. urged the Justice Department to keep its distance from an eager and demanding "new right," even characterizing one of the giants of the conservative movement as "no friend of ours."

Judge Roberts, then a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, wrote several memos in 1981 and 1982 giving advice to his boss on handling pressure from conservative groups elated by ideological soul mate Ronald Reagan's winning the White House.

Judge Roberts did not paint a flattering portrait of Mr. Weyrich or his ideas, even misspelling the man's name. "I suggest we keep as low a profile on this as possible," Judge Roberts wrote. "Weyerich is of course no friend of ours, but it won't help to stir up the influential contributors to his volume, and any comment by the AG will simply highlight the fact that we have yet to take a position" on some hot-button issues.

Judge Roberts also suggested that the spokesman could make it clear to the ABA that Mr. Smith was not beholden to influential conservatives.

Judge Roberts also prepped Mr. Smith for a Jan. 28, 1982, meeting with John Lofton, then editor of Conservative Digest. His approach was more subtle than his advice for Mr. Weyrich. "Mr. Lofton will doubtless arrive with many criticisms of the Department for not advancing conservative ideals," Judge Roberts wrote.

TG: John Lofton is a genuine conservative. His excellent website and radio show (done with Constitution party Presidential candidate Michale Peroutka) can be found at: http://www.theamericanview.com/

ROBERTS PREPPED O'CONNOR

The question being repeatedly asked is, "Will Judge Roberts be a real conservative like everyone says he is (except me, Howard Phillips, and Ann Coulter ;-), or will he be be a closet liberal like Souter and O'Connor?

Readers of this blog know that Roberts came out of that closet long ago, despite the conservatives who close their eyes to the truth. But one item uncovered gives an overt clue as to which type of judge Roberts will most resemble.

Roberts prepared the liberal Sandra Day O'Connor to be able to evade answer the questions at her confirmation hearing.

Why does that also give me the impression his own hearings will be as scripted as a professional wrestling match?

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/013445.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&slug=Roberts%20Documents

Documents show Roberts aiding O'Connor

WASHINGTON -- As a young Justice Department lawyer, John Roberts helped guide Supreme Court nominee Sandra Day O'Connor through the Senate confirmation process he now confronts as the choice to replace her. Roberts was just six weeks into his job when he drafted a memo to Kenneth Starr describing his work with O'Connor. The young Roberts said he helped ready O'Connor for her confirmation hearing, preparing draft answers to questions she was likely to be asked.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-11T165610Z_01_N11572657_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-COURT-ROBERTS-DC.XML

Roberts advised O'Connor to be discreet at hearing

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts advised Sandra Day O'Connor, the moderate conservative he seeks to replace, to avoid specific answers at her Senate confirmation hearings about legal issues expected to reach the court, according to newly released memos.

BUSH AIDE CLARIFIES ROBERTS and ROE

*

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=349&AMVIEWUSER=0d4ee151445149aefec1af3d9b580537

Bush White House press aide Stephen Schmidt called MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough to refute a banner that crossed the screen during "Scarborough Country" which simply said "Roberts: Overturn Roe v. Wade", to make it clear that Roberts does NOT want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Scarborough apologized and made the correction.

So now Roberts' gang are making sure to tell everyone that he does NOT want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and reverse the 'legality' of abortion.

Why do so many Christians and conservatives insist that Roberts (and Bush) is a conservative and is pro-life when he has clearly SAID he's not?!

He's called Roe vs. Wade the "settled law of the land". He's acknowledged that "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," . What more could it take to convince people that he is NOT pro-life?

Perhaps if he actually performed an abortion himself people might be convinced? That probably wouldn't do it, judging from the reaction so far. Christian celebrities and con-servatives are defending Roberts no matter what he says or does.

ROBERTS DEFENDED GAMBLING

Frank Fahrenkopf (Executive Director of the American Gaming Association, and former Republican Party Chairman) worked with Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts at the Hogan and Hartson law firm. He even hired John Roberts to defend the gambling industry.

Here is Robert's bio from the DOJ site: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/robertsbio.htm

Here you can listen to Farenkopf talk about these things in a brief, five minute interview on "Face to Face":

http://www.klastv.com/global/video/popup/pop_player.asp?ClipID1=488259&h1=Who%20is%20John%20Roberts%3F%20August%201%2C%202005%20-%20Segment%201&amp;amp;vt1=v&at1=Political&d1=346567&LaunchPageAdTag=Political&activePane=info&playerVersion=1&rnd=91788563

Who is John Roberts? August 1, 2005 - Segment 1

It's been two weeks since President Bush nominated John Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet, the public still knows very little about the President's pick. On Monday's Face to Face, Jon attempts to unravel the mystery by talking with former Republican Party Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, who worked with Roberts at a Washington law firm.

This stuff might not be as grievous as the last few items (defending mass murderers, sodomites, and pledging to support baby killing), but it's another item to prove he isn't remotely close to conservative.

I know we're beating a dead horse, but too many conservative Christians want to keep riding that dead horse, and we have to convince them this horse is indeed dead.

ROBERTS DEFENDED MASS MURDERER

*

You probably think I'm using a sensationalist title to attract attention. Certainly Judge Roberts couldn't have engaged in such a heinous thing. Why, conservative Christians might have to admit he isn't a "strict constitutional conservative" after all. Then again, his pro-Roe vs. Wade comments didn't do it. His defense of a major sodomite-rights case didn't even affect very many, so maybe Christians are more brain-dead than I thought.

If this doesn't cause Christians to admit that Roberts is unworthy of support, I suppose the only thing that would is if it was found out that he was Michael Jackson's "business partner" in Neverland. Then again, maybe THAT wouldn't be enough.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050806/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_pro_bono

Roberts Devoted Free Time to Liberal Cases

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Sat Aug 6, 8:31 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Despite his view that death penalty appeals are clogging the courts, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts provided free legal help to an inmate languishing on Florida's death row for two decades.

25 hours of legal assistance that Roberts reported to the Senate Judiciary Committee ... in the case of John Ferguson, who was convicted in 1978 of killing eight people in one of the worst mass murders in Florida history ... Roberts didn't hesitate when colleagues asked him to provide advice involving appeals in the high-profile Florida case.

Ferguson, 56, was a triggerman in the killings of eight people in two separate, apparently drug-related shootings. His accomplices, Beauford J. White and Marvin Francois, have already been executed.

But Roberts' pro bono, or free, work as a lawyer at Washington's Hogan & Hartson — ranging from assisting welfare clients and gay rights activists ...Responding this week to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, Roberts cited cases involving minority voting rights, noise pollution at the Grand Canyon and environmental protection of Glacier Bay, Alaska.

TG: This sounds more like AlGore than it sounds like anyone remotely resembling a constitutional conservative.

Is NOBODY Against Abortion Anymore?

*

The photo is intentionally gruesome to remind us of how heinous abortion is.

I remember in the 70's and 80's, after abortion became allowed, the popular mantra of the liberals was "I'm personally opposed to abortion, BUT it would be wrong for me to impose those views on someone else."

That was the position of liberals like Ted Kennedy and Geraldine Ferraro. Of course few would actually state they were 'for' abortion. That would have been political suicide.

Only fringe radicals would vote for someone who was openly pro-abortion. But, by taking the "personally opposed, BUT" position, abortion 'rights' advanced like a charging rhino.

Some politicians talked against abortion, but fewer and fewer actually voted against it.

However, most conservatives and Christians recognized that position for the copout it was and swept an outspoken anti-abortionist into the White House in 1980.

Now the mantra has changed a little, but means and accomplishes the same thing. "I'm personally opposed to abortion, BUT I will uphold Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land."

The difference is, instead of hearing that from the lefties, we're hearing it from people like John Ashcroft and Judge John Roberts. These guys are perceived to be conservative stalwarts.

Worse yet, the conservatives and Christians who saw through the facade of Ferraro ond Teddy now are accepting that cowardly excuse as valid and supporting such forked-tongued candidates.

If staunch conservatives will do no more than give lip-service to being anti-abortion, who will take a stand? Apparently nobody.

Many still talk against abortion, but nobody is really against it when it comes voting time.

Citizens vote for these guys who SAY one thing and DO the opposite. The politicians and judges tell us they will be hypocrites ahead of time, and Americans vote for them anyway. Then those hypocrites why SAY they are opposed to abortion routinely DO the opposite and vote for abortion. And the dumb sheep accept it as if they had no choice but to support the continued killing of babies. After all, it is "the settled law of the land", right?

WRONG. Roe vs. Wade is a court decision, not a law. Moreover, no one is beholden to support an immoral law or court rendering. The real "settled law of the land" is the U.S. constitution which was derived from the Bible. Any subsequent law or decision not made "in the pursuance thereof" need not be written in stone as if it's illegal for anyone to cast an opposing vote.

Yet, when it comes down to what they DO, rather than what they SAY, almost nobody is really against abortion anymore.

Sincerely,

Nobody (IOW, I'm still against abortion in word and DEED no matter who else says or does what.)

ROBERTS AIDED SODOMITES

He's already said he'll uphold Roe vs. Wade as "the settled law of the land", and permit the slaughter of infants to continue. He's already shown he doesn't know America is a Republic. He's already shown that he endorsed dictatorial powers for the president. He's already taken the liberal side on welfare, the environment, private property, affirmative action, and prisoner's rights (howbeit he's also contradicted himself and taken the other side of some of those issues), the only thing left for him to take the liberal side on is sodomite rights.

Guess what? Yep, you got it on the first try! Not only did he defend the queers, he did it for FREE! And, the three conservative justices whom Roberts is most often compared to, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, all voted the other way. This again indicates that Roberts will vote with the frauds and liberals, like Souter.

Worst of all, that ruling forces PRIVATE HOMEOWNERS to be forced to rent their homes to queers and have queers work for them.

Who in the world could possibly mistake this guy for a "strict constitutionalist" or a "staunch conservative"? Are worshippers of Son Young Bush really that brainwashed?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/04/roberts_helped_gay_rights_activists_win_landmark_ruling/

Roberts helped gay-rights activists win landmark ruling

Court nominee had background role in decision

By Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times August 4, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. The coalition won its case, 6 to 3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement's most important legal victory.

The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts's role working on behalf of gay activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts did not hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job," Smith said.

The committee asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them. Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released Tuesday. (TG: Oops! He forgot!)

But Smith said yesterday that was probably just an oversight because Roberts was not the chief litigator in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

Jean Dubofsky, lead attorney on the case and a former member of the Colorado Supreme Court, said she came to Washington to prepare for the Supreme Court presentation and immediately was referred to Roberts. "Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to,"

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. Activists across the country cheered the victory. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff attorney for Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians based in New York, called it the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay-rights movement."

Thanks to MBD for finding this item.

QUESTIONNAIRE EXPOSING ROBERTS AS WOLF

One of the most common excuses I've heard for people who want to close their eyes and pretend Judge John Roberts might be truly conservative is, "Well, we really won't know for sure his positions until he starts answering their questions and ruling on things. He may have said a few pro-choice type comments to appease the liberals, but when he's questioned and appointed, then we'll see where he stands NOW."

It's almost like they are hoping he lied to fool the liberals, but (wink, wink), he's really on our side - we hope.

NOPE. The first round of questioning came in, in the form of a 67 page questionnaire, and Roberts reiterated EXACTLY what I claimed in the first place. He is NOT a conservative at all. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the clothing fits so badly I can't believe how intelligent people can't see the wolf underneath unless they were willingly ignorant.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/4801511/detail.html

Roberts Says He'll Respect Settled Law

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is pledging to respect settled law if confirmed. Roberts said precedent is important in "promoting the stability of the legal system." The comments were part of a questionnaire Roberts filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee released about 100 pages of his responses on Tuesday.

He even used the SAME TERM he used when he said earlier that Roe vs. Wade was the "SETTLED law of the land". Does he have to actually kill the babies himself before the Bush-bots will believe he's not conservative?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts-wealth_x.htm

In the questionnaire, Roberts wrote, "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges."

IOW, he admittedly does support ruling from the bench and is not a "strict constitutionalist". No matter how many times Bush and his robots parrot the line that Roberts is a "strict constitutionalist", they are lying.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts_x.htm

"They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," Roberts stated.

Well, many of those decisions Roberts insists he'll respect as "settled law" were rendered to solve a supposed societal problem - Roe vs. Wade being the prominent example! If both our "conservative Republican Christian" President, and his first Supreme Court judicial nominee say that they will do nothing to even attempt to quell abortion ("America is not ready", "It's not my job", or whatever excuse), who will? They are the LEADERS. If they won't turn the country toward righteousness, why should a Christian support them? What difference does it make if we have a "conservative Republican Christian" who does nothing to stop abortion, or a liberal Democrat feminist (Hillary?) who won't stop abortion (but at least agrees it's a tragic thing)?

WHO'S FOR DICTATORSHIP?

On July 15th the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Bush administration view of presidential military authority.

That view is akin to the authority Stalin or Hitler held. The Bush administration believes that the president has the right to designate ANY individual as an "enemy combatant", and that person can be detained indefinitely with no right to appeal, representation, evidence, trial, or presumption of innocence. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez applauded the decision.

The document specifies that Congress cannot "place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used, or the method, timing, or nature of the response." A December, 2001 ruling that goes along with this states that no federal court could "properly entertain appeals from enemy aliens held in detention."

By being tagged as "enemy combatants", they are not treated as prisoners of war or criminals (those groups have more rights). The President can literally name ANYBODY (including YOU) an "enemy combatant" and that individual has NO recourse whatsoever. That is nothing short of Gestapo-KGB-dictatorial power, exceeding anything Saddam Hussein ever perpetrated.

As dangerous as such power is in the hands of a supposed conservative, Republican Christian, can you imagine that power in the hands of future President Hillary when she wants to eradicate "homophobes", anti-abortion zealots, those home schoolers who are in such rebellion to the gov't, or other members of the "vast right-wing conspiracy"? In fact, Hillary's husband Bill was the one who originated this presidential war-power plan that George Bush currently enjoys enforcing.

Actually, it's not a matter of "when" some ambitious president will use this power to detain a foreigner or an American. It has already been done. Of course most of the people violated are "bad guys" like American citizen Jose Padilla. That way the public isn't so alarmed. But if they are truly such bad guys, they surely would be duly convicted in a legal trial.

But they are not all so repugnant. Canadian citizen Mahar Arar's experience proved that. He was detained under these regulations with no charges filed. He was not allowed to face his accusers nor was he presented with any evidence. He was sent to Syria where he was tortured with rods and cables. He was forced to sign a bogus confession and then freed without ever being charged with anything by anybody.

Shipping these alleged "enemy combatants" to foreign countries that use heinous methods of torture is becoming common. Besides Syria, we've sent some to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan (along with sending their Karimov regime $500 billion for "security matters"), where they torture by boiling body parts, among other gruesome methods. Our President can order torture of the detainees as he (or she) sees fit, and the interrogators enjoy immunity from persecution.

Certainly no conservative could support such atrocities. The Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals must be made up of typical liberal judicial activists trying to legislate from the bench and force their socialist bent on America.

Oh, did I mention that one of the judges on the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who endorsed these dictatorial presidential powers was JOHN ROBERTS?

(Information from http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1903.shtml)

THE CONSERVATIVE CASE AGAINST ROBERTS

This Supreme Court nomination is supposed to be President Bush's best shot, the most conservative guy he has yet offered. One who will probably to allow him to nominate a liberal like Gonzales to replace Rehnquist in the future.

Well, if Judge John Roberts is the best and most conservative Bush can do, we'd be better off with JFK nominees like Byron White.

FOGGY FOGEY

At BEST, Roberts has a very ambiguous record and has opposed himself several times - not good qualities for a Supreme Court *Judge* who needs to be decisive. He has made conflicting comments on abortion. He's taken opposing cases on environmentalism. He's been inconsistent on government rights as opposed to the rights of the citizens.

ABORTION DISTORTION

On abortion, Roberts once said on behalf of a client "that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.", but he explained that was not his own personal opinion.

His other comments on abortion indicated that indeed, his personal opinion was much different:

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... it's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent," Roberts said in response to a question from Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill."

If Hillary Clinton said something like this, Christians and conservatives would skewer her. The same groups defend and excuse Roberts.

CON CON

Conservative Christians, swooning for Bush & Roberts like teenybopper girls at a Beatles concert, insist that Roberts is a strict constitutionalist. How can that be when he doesn't even know that Roe vs. Wade is not a LAW at all - it's a court decision? The constitution is the "settled law of the land".

This also indicates that Roberts has no aversion to courts legislating from the bench, a destructively unconstitutional practice.

Moreover, in his acceptance speech, Roberts twice referred to America as a "democracy" rather than the Republic we are supposed to be. A democracy is mob rule of the people over law, where the passion of the herd can usurp other's rights. Our Republic is a representative government where we have inalienable rights that cannot be abrogated even by unanimous vote, and law rules over people.

Article Four, Section Four, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state a Republican form of government."

The local town clerk should know what kind of government America has, much less a Supreme Court justice.

CONTRADICTION AND CONFUSION

Roberts also defended a case that supports the welfare state. So supportive was he, that he didn't charge for his efforts:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”

In the case of Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Roberts represented a government agency against property owners. He won 6-3, but it was the three conservative members of the Court (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) who dissented. That indicated he will be more of a 'moderate/swing vote' (read: liberal) like Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor (except that O'Connor was with the conservatives on Kelo).

Roberts thereby showed that he likely would've voted with the majority in the Kelo case, which allows localities to forcefully acquire private property to sell to other private investors, if they feel it's good for "economic development". For example, they might replace a church, which has no tax liability, with a casino, a bar, or a strip joint, that pays lots of taxes.

They say we don't know much about Roberts (this article proves that's debatable), but the more we do learn, the worse it gets. Here is some of his testimony when confirmed as an appellate judge in Washington D.C.:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8198

"My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative across the board. I have argued in favor of environmental restrictions and against takings claims. I have argued in favor of affirmative action. I’ve argued in favor of prisoners’ rights under the 8th Amendment."

Environmentalism? Against private property? Affirmative action? Prisoner's rights? Upholding Roe vs. Wade as "settled law of the land"? Supports the welfare state? America is a democracy rather than a Republic?

Bill Clinton could've nominated this guy and nobody would've thought he was out-of-place.

STRANGE SILENCE AND SUPPORT

Conservatives are doing all they can to hide and shield Roberts from scrutiny. Why would that be if he is a legitimate conservative? What are they afraid of?

Ken Starr is already parroting the claim that Robert's personal views should not even be questioned (NewsMax.com update).

The Bush administration is hiding Roberts' paper record, while the cooperative media is pretending like he doesn't have a paper trail - just like they did with David Souter, despite the fact that Constitution party presidential candidate Howard Phillips exposed to Congress that Souter had a clear pro-abortion record with two hospitals.

WorldNetDaily reported on an AP release that said, "Material that would come under attorney-client privilege to be withheld" ABC News also covered it with, "Bush Administration Unwilling to Release All Documents Written by Roberts During White House Tenure" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=972422)

Roberts himself is disassociating himself from anything that appears remotely conservative. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/24/AR2005072401201_pf.html)

But amidst all this hush-hush stuff from conservatives comes some interesting shows of support: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html)

{{ Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. }}

(Liberal democrat Sen. Joe) Lieberman says he's encouraged following meeting with Roberts (http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-26014414.apds.m0721.bc-ct--robejul26,0,7375629.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

(Liberal democrat Sen. Dianne) Feinstein calls Roberts 'impressive' (http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2981142,00.html)

(Liberal columnist) Susan Ager: "Roberts seems nice, ordinary" (Ager lauds the possibility Roberts and his wife may have committed fornication due to marriage at 41, that they may have considered abortion in the past, and that Roberts played a female character in a play. She considered obedient children as 'henpecked' and praises Roberts' son for being unruly.) (http://www.freep.com/features/living/ager26e_20050726.htm)

Key Democrat upbeat over Roberts (http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/013445.html)

This key democrat was Richard Durbin, the same one who questioned Roberts on Roe vs. Wade. But here's the kicker:

Hillary Clinton To Support Roberts (http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/013445.html)

Do we need anything more to know we are dealing with another wolf in sheep's clothing? What else should we expect from George W. Bush?

Oh wait! There's an even bigger kicker!:

Bill Clinton says Roberts is "very impressive" (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=awwPLUOU2B4M)

What's the next possible headline?

SADDAM SUPPORTS ROBERTS
Says he is 'very impressive'

-or-

OSAMA SUPPORTS ROBERTS
Says he is 'very impressive'

maybe

ELLEN DEGENERES and ROSIE O'DONNELL ADORE ROBERTS
Say he is 'very impressive'

I mean, after Hillary AND Bill, and Schurmer, and Lieberman and Feinstein, who else could hop on board?

While we're talking about kickers, this whole scenario reminds me of Lucy and Charlie Brown and their football skit. Lucy holds the ball for Charlie to placekick, but she pulls it away at the last second every time, and Charlie tumbles head-over-heel. Every time she promises that THIS time she'l hold the ball, btu she always pulls it and Charlie always falls. If they did it a million times, Charlie would have a million bruises on his rump.

Gullible Christians keep expecting to get a true conservative out of the establichment GOP - but Lucy pulls the ball away every time. From Bush to Cheney to Ashcroft to Bolton to Roberts, "good old" Charlie Brown keeps runnng toward the ball, and Lucy keeps pulling it away.

And when Bush nominates someone to replace William Rehnquist, it will start again, "THIS time I'll hold the ball for SURE, Charlie Brown!"

BUSH NAMES ANOTHER JELLYFISH JUSTICE

Judge John Roberts is another guy who SAYS he is pro-life, but when in office will BE pro-abortion. He's told us this ahead of time, but many conservative Christians are still swooning for him like he was the fifth Beatle. He has many liberal admirers and he's trying to keep his record hidden like Souter did. He doesn't know the difference between a "settled law of the land" and a court decision. Maybe worst of all, he doesn't even know what kind of government America has. The town clerk should know these things, much less a Supreme Court justice.

Here's the preliminary rundown on Roberts, beginning with his pro-Roe stance:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5152927,00.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163028,00.html

{{ In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." }}

{{ Roberts' nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. Some 126 members of the District of Columbia Bar, including officials of the Clinton administration, signed a letter urging his confirmation. }}

What difference will it make to keep nominating guys who TALK conservative but admit they will ACT liberal?

All the national Christian conservative celebrities will worship this guy like a rock star or a professional athlete, but he will RULE liberal like rest of the Court despite their 7-2 Republican majority.

Not only that, but Roe v. Wade is NOT A LAW at all, much less the "settled law of the land". Roe is a court decision, not a law. The settled law of the land is the U.S. constitution. Do we want another justice who believes in legislating from the bench? Do we want another SC justice who doesn't know the difference between a law and a court decision, a Republic or a democracy, or who doesn't know what the law of the land is?

{{ Judge Roberts is a conservative, but he has never been an ideological crusader; he has admirers among liberals. }}

{{The reality, however, is that nobody really knows what Judge Roberts believes [TG: Baloney! I know what he believes! The information is readily available to anyone. I have no inside sources, I didn't even have to do a Google search. Anyone who doesn't know Roberts' positions is WILLINGLY ignorant.], because he has been unusually careful about not discussing his views. His judicial work has been, generally speaking, careful and has given little away about the attitudes of the man who wrote it. So sphinx-like has he been that some conservatives have suggested he might have a "Souter problem" -- that is, not be a real conservative at all. ... But Judge Roberts's law practice was not ideologically driven }}

Sounds just like Souter, except we all know that the "Souter problem" was likewise contrived. Howard Phillips addressed Congress and gave them the information that Souter was on the board of two hospitals where he oversaw their transformation from no abortion to abortion on demand. Before they confirmed him, Congress KNEW Souter was a pro-abortion liberal, they just PRETENDED they didn't, and the liberal media covered for them.

Roberts also supports the welfare state:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.

”In the speech that the new Supreme Court nominee gave after Bush introduced him, Roberts called America a "constitutional democracy".

A man who doesn't know what kind of government we have has no business being on the Supreme Court. America is not a democracy, America is a REPUBLIC! Our pledge of allegiance to the flag makes this clear:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ..."

And ultimately our Constitution specifies in Article 4 Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the union a REPUBLICAN form of government."

A democracy is pure mob rule, where everything is decided by the momentary passion of the majority (which can change with the wind or be manipulated). Our Republic allows for inalienable rights (life, religion, speech, arms, etc.) that cannot be abrogated (legally) by a majority vote, or even a unanimous vote.

A republic morphs into a democracy when the people realize they can vote themselves ever increasing largesse off the backs of those who work for a living. Of course that puts both classes under the jackboot of the gov't. The welfare class owes their living to the gov't and the working class has their earnings forcefully confiscated by the gov't. Obviously as the welfare class votes themselves more and more of the provisions of the working class, the society breaks down.

Under a republic, man is subject to the law, under a democracy, the law is subject to the whims of men. I can't think of a better illustration of a godly society as opposed to a secular one.

Alexander Hamilton said: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." Samuel Adams warned: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." James Madison, who was charged with drawing up our Constitution which "guarantees to every State a Republican form of government", wrote: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." George Washington, in his first inaugural address, dedicated himself to "the preservation ... of the republican model of government." Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was the founder of the Democratic Party; but in his first inaugural address, although he referred several times to the Republic or the republican form of government he did not use the word "democracy" a single time.

Of course the majority of Christians will fawn over Roberts, and will be misled by ignornant Christian leaders like these:

{{There's no question that President Bush is a promise keeper," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council }}

{{The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, described Roberts as an "all-star" on key social issues such as abortion ... }}

{{"Everything we know about Judge Roberts tells us that he fulfills the president's promise to nominate a judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. }}

But we will continue to actually examine the FACTS, his positions, and his statements. We will not blindly swallow the claim that he is a constitutional conservative just because the Christian celebrities say so.