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!"