CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS? ROBERTS CAN'T.

(All three photos are of Samuel Armas, the final at age four)

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=398

Roberts Won’t Say If Unborn Child A Person Or Property (!)

On this program, we have some final thoughts on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. You’ll hear him say, preposterously, that he cannot say whether an unborn child is a person or property because this issue might come before him as a judge; you’ll hear the supposedly Christian/conservative Sens. Tom Coburn and Rick Santorum praise Roberts; and you’ll hear Republican Party cheerleaders Pat Robertson and Jay Sekulow attacking the Left for wanting to remove God from American public life; and yes, these are the same men who enthusiastically cheered Roberts who said his judging is Godless, in no way influenced by the Bible.

ROBERTS-BUSH SECRET POLICE SUPPORT

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/242444_roberts28.html

Roberts' ruling on suspect troubling

If we want to predict how John Roberts might act as chief justice of the United States, we should study his rulings over the past two years on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. As a federal judge, Roberts is not beholden to the executive branch but can voice his own interpretation of the laws and the Constitution.

Unfortunately, his judicial record reveals an expansive view of presidential power in tension with fundamental human rights.

Shortly before President Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court, Roberts joined two of his colleagues on the D.C. bench in a ruling that frees the government from almost any humanitarian constraint in its treatment of foreign captives suspected of terrorism. The ruling suggests that, as chief justice, Roberts would not oppose the cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and other detention centers located abroad.

The issue in "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld" was whether the federal government could prosecute foreign terrorist suspects in military commissions that lack the due process protections of civilian trials and military courts martial. The newly created commissions are stacked so heavily against the defendant that they have triggered protests from defense lawyers and from military prosecutors.

Prosecutors may introduce "secret evidence" that the defense cannot see and might even be able to use information extracted by torture. There is no possibility of appeal to a civilian court.

Lawyers for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Guantanamo prisoner awaiting trial, argued that the commissions are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The district judge agreed, noting the Conventions' emphatic prohibition on unfair trials. This decision was reversed by Roberts and his colleagues on the appeals court. (TG: They reversed their OWN decision? And we want someone so double-minded as Chief Justice?)

The military commissions are an expedited form of justice that will lead to convictions of innocent people. The Geneva Conventions had sought to abolish this barbaric practice. Yet Roberts perceives no legal bar to the commissions, and believes that, even if they are illegal, the U.S. court system has no right to interfere. His view comes close to depriving suspected terrorists of all rights, including the right against cruel and inhuman treatment.

Jamie Mayerfeld is associate professor of political science at the University of Washington.

MAIN LIBERAL DEMOCRAT to CONFIRM ROBERTS - LACKEYS to FOLLOW

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/015077.htmlnantnews.com/abortion/archives/015077.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aYNCoSYG1QOQ&refer=top_world_news

Sen. Leahy To Support Roberts' Nomination After Reassurances About Upholding Privacy Rights

U.S. chief justice nominee John G. Roberts received the support of the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who said he is reassured Roberts wouldn't overrule or undercut a woman's right to an abortion.

Leahy's support may lead as many as half of the Senate's 44 Democrats to vote for the nominee next week.

ROBERTS PLAYS POLITICAL FOOTBALL WITH BABIES

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/015043.html

Brownback Wants Next Court Nominee To At Least Act 'Pro-Life'

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/12714769.htm

Brownback Wants Next Court Nominee to Have Anti-Abortion Record

SAM HANANEL Associated Press WASHINGTON -

Sen. Sam Brownback voted Thursday in favor of Judge John Roberts to become the next chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court but said he wants to see future nominees more clearly oppose abortion rights."The next nominee should let the political branches make political choices and should have a record of devotion to life and liberty that our Constitution protects," the Kansas Republican said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

This is a clear admission by a conservative Republican Senator that Roberts is not a conservative, he's not pro-life, and they KNOW he's not. Yet conservative Christians across the country want to cover their eyes and ears and pretend he really is conservative.

It gets worse:

At hearings last week, Brownback asked Roberts if he considered a fetus "a person or a piece of property." Roberts declined to answer on the grounds that it was a legal issue that could come before him on the high court.

So to Roberts, by his own admission (lack thereof), babies are simply legal footballs to be tossed around in court, not people.

ROBERTS REPUDIATES the BIBLE

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/015009.html

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=395

John Roberts’ Shocking Repudiation Of The Bible As The Standard For His Judging

ROBERTS REPUDIATES the BIBLE

Our 23rd nationally-syndicated, one-hour radio show, “The American View,” co-hosted by myself (Constitution Party Presidential candidate Michael Peroutka) and “recovering Republican” John Lofton, was broadcast this past Sunday in 38 cities in 22 states.

On this program, we discuss John Roberts’ shocking, un-American repudiation of the Bible as his standard for judging and the shameful silence from so-called “Christian leaders” about this statement which alone disqualifies him from being a judge. We also discuss the abysmal ignorance and Constitutional illiteracy of so many of Roberts’ interrogators on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

John Roberts was answering questions from ultra-liberal Sen. Diane Feinstein. She was not even asking him about God or the Bible. Roberts actually offered up this repudiation of God and the Bible by himself.

Here is what Judge Roberts averred:

"I do know this, that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books, and always have. I don't look to the Bible or any other religious source."

Jay Sekulow said this was a "fantastic response" when being interviewed by an assenting Pat Robertson. Other conservatives are excusing the comment as something Roberts *had* to say before the committee (wink, wink), but probably doesn't hold in reality. So the best defense offered for Judge Roberts is that he LIED under oath to Congress and America.

Of course without the Bible, there is no foundation for law, it can change with the breeze, and have no semblance to morality, justice, or righteousness. America was founded with the Bible as the final arbiter for determining that things like murder and stealing are wrong. Roberts is repudiating the foundation of American justice. He says the Bible doesn't even play a role in his judging. He has no foundation for determining law, justice, or right and wrong. He is a virtual ATHEIST when it comes to being a Supreme Court justice.

In another issue covered here before, Roberts also said he didn't find anything "morally objectionable" in being involved in the Romer v. Evans case which forces employers (churches?) and landlords to accept sodomites. I wonder then why he originally didn't include that case in his 67 page list of pro-bono cases he worked on?

http://robertsrules.blogspot.com/2005/08/roberts-aided-sodomites.html

Christians will have to give account to God for supporting this pro-queer, pro-abortion, pro-pornography, anti-Bible, virtual atheist, and for promoting him as a "Conservative".

ROBERTS WON'T "ROCK the BOAT" to the RIGHT

Don't expect any displays of courage from another liberal in conservative clothing.

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/014954.html

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050916/1029030.asp

Roberts Not Likely to Rock the Boat, Will Move the Court to The Left

This is all about Roe. Take the interrogation about Roberts' belief in the right to privacy. They are not asking about search and seizure in your home. They are asking about the "right to choose" (a brilliant locution that expunges the ugly word abortion from all political debate about abortion) - what Roberts in 1981 correctly termed the "so-called "right to privacy,' " a skepticism he is now required to disavow.

I predict two things: (a) Chief Justice Roberts will vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, and (b) his replacing his former boss, Chief Justice Rehnquist, will move the court only mildly, but most assuredly, to the left - as measured by the only available yardstick, the percent of concurrences with the opinions of those conservative touchstones, Scalia and Thomas.

I infer this not just by what Roberts has said in his hearings - that he supports Griswold v. Connecticut, that he respects precedent, that he finds Roe itself worthy of respect. I infer it from his temperament, career and life history as an establishment conservative who prizes judicial modesty above all. Which means while he will never repeat Roe, he will never repeal it and be the cause of the social upheaval that repeal would bring.

He is just not a judicial revolutionary. If you're a conservative looking for a return to the good old days, you'll be disappointed. And if you're a liberal who lives for the good old days because that's all that liberalism has left, tell Chuck Schumer to relax.

GOP SEN. SAYS ROBERTS is PRO-ABORTION

It's finally dawning on some people that Roberts is not what they thought he was.

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/014955.html

http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept

Bush Nominated A Pro-Abort, So Don't Expect Roe's End With Roberts, GOP Senator Says

WASHINGTON -- A key Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee warned his fellow conservatives Sunday not to confirm Judge John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States if they expected that doing so would automatically lead to a dismantling of the Roe vs. Wade decision on abortion. But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Roberts would make a trustworthy conservative leader on the high court — just not a sure bet for Republicans who for years have yearned to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling protecting a woman's right to choose abortion.

TG: They're finally catching on to what I've been saying all along.

UPSIDE DOWN

This should tell anyone with sense all they need to know. We just showed that ultra-liberal Sen. Charles Schumer supported Judge Roberts:

http://www.nysun.com/article/19984

Earlier we showed that the Democrats do not plan to put up a serious challenge to Roberts:

http://robertsrules.blogspot.com/2005/08/democrats-wont-fight-roberts.html

We've shown that several ultra-liberal Democrats have lauded Roberts, including Joe Lieberman, Richard Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary AND Bill Clinton:

http://robertsrules.blogspot.com/2005/08/conservative-case-against-roberts.html

Now we see that a Republican weighs in against Judge Roberts:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-16T184421Z_01_DIT664129_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-COURT-ROBERTS-BLOOMBERG-DC.XML

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday opposed John Roberts' nomination to be U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, making him the first noted Republican to break with the Bush administration over who should lead America's top court.

Go figure.

STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST?

Even the radical homosexuals know that Judge Roberts is not actually a strict constitutionalist. How come Christians and conservatives are so blind that they think he is? The far-left lavendar lobby is actually considering not opposing Roberts. That should alarm any Christian conservative with the discernment of a baking potato.

The radical queer website 365gay.com ran an article on Judge Roberts by Doreen Brandt called, "Roberts Waffles On Issues Involving Gay Rights". Of course nothing short of Barney Frank would totally appease these guys, so the fact that they accuse Roberts of 'waffling' on the sodomite agenda means that he has leaned their way. In it, they quoted Judge Roberts as saying some interesting things that should greatly concern Christian conservatives.

After saying Tuesday that he supported the constitutional guarantee of privacy he refused on Wednesday to say how far that would extend.

The right to privacy has been a key factor in a whole series of LGBT civil rights cases - the most important of which was the 2003 Supreme Court ruling overturning sodomy laws. (story) The ruling was later cited in the Massachusetts high court ruling that struck down the prohibition on same-sex marriage (story) and has been used to fight child custody cases involving gay parents.

Despite prodding to define privacy Roberts would not indicate if he defined it narrowly or broadly. He then confounded Democrats further by saying that the privacy right he accepts is endorsed by every current Supreme Court justice “to some extent or another.’’

That's what the invented and twisted right to "privacy" has brought us, and Roberts supports that. It's odd that we have some twisted right to privacy when a woman wants to kill her baby or a sodomite wants his perversion legally recognized, but we have no privacy when it comes to being undressed in airports, having our bank records snooped by our gov't, purchasing a gun, contributing to a church, charity, or political cause, etc. etc.

He did however, suggest he differs with Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia on their narrow view of the Constitution. Both believe the document must be interpreted literally.

Under questioning from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa) Roberts said that words such as 'liberty' or 'equality' should not be given a "cramped or narrow construction," based solely on their meaning at the time the Constitution was written.

Now Roberts himself has plainly admitted that he is NOT a strict constitutionalist and he disagrees with the two Supreme Court justices who are. Yet many Bush-bot conservative Christians will insist Roberts is a strict constructionist - despite his own words to the contrary.

ROBERTS DANCES WITH WOLVES

Senator Schumer must be Judge Roberts' dance instructor. He is doing quite a two-step himself.

ONE STEP: HE LOVES HIM

http://www.nysun.com/article/19984

Senator Schumer, said toward the end of the day that he was "pleasantly surprised" by several of the answers Judge Roberts gave, including his statements about privacy. It was a startling concession, since opponents of abortion heaped similar praise on the nominee throughout the day for his answers on the issue.

TWO-STEP: HE LOVES HIM NOT

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050914/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_29

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., epitomized the frustration of Democrats with Roberts' answers.

"You are being less forthcoming with this committee than just about any other person who has come before us," said Schumer, who questioned why Roberts has offered his opinions on past cases in other forums but not at his confirmation hearing for chief justice.

"Why this room should be some kind of cone of silence is beyond me," Schumer said.

This whole charade being passed off as a confirmation hearing appears to be as legitimate as professional wrestling. No doubt Washington D. C. is where Vince McMahon gets most of his script material.

DICTATOR for LIFE?

Earlier we commented about Bush elevating Judge Roberts all the way to Chief Justice in one fell swoop instead of selecting a currently reigning justice. We alluded to the position being a "dictator for life". Apparently, that's what Bush and Roberts indeed had in mind.

http://www.nysun.com/article/19984

During a comic parry with Senator Kohl on with which of the earlier memos Judge Roberts does agree, Judge Roberts allowed that he now disagrees with one in which he suggested term limits for justices of the Supreme Court.

He may have said it in a light-manner, but it's very curious that he supported limiting the terms of Supreme Court justices until HE was considered for one himself.

ROBERTS Will Support MURDER if LEGAL

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/014899.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050914/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_29

Roberts: Law Will Guide Right-To-Die Cases

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Wednesday assured senators he would be guided by the law, not personal beliefs, on right-to-die cases. On right-to-die cases, the nominee would say little more than his oft-repeated response that it would be inappropriate to comment on cases that he might decide. "I will confront them with an open mind. They won't be based on my personal views. They will be based on my understanding of the law," he said.

So if the "law" makes murder legal, spineless Roberts will support it. Apparently he has no foundation for his idea of "law". To jellyfish Roberts, "law" is whatever way the wind blows today.

SHRED THE CONSTITUTION

Somehow Judge John Roberts got the *image* of being a strict constructionist constitutionalist. We are seeing during his confirmation hearings quite the opposite. Judge Roberts reads the Constitution with an eraser and a pair of scissors.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?Feed=BWK&Date=20050914&ID=5113370

Roberts dropped a bombshell on conservatives who believe in a narrow interpretation of the Constitution: "Judges take a more practical and pragmatic approach when deciding the rule of law," rather than sticking to a strict philosophy, Roberts said. "The Framers chose to use broad language [in the Constitution], and we should take them at their word."

Under friendly but persistent probing from Senators Charles Grassley [R-Iowa] and Orin Hatch [R-Utah], Roberts dismissed the "strict constructionist" and "textualist" approaches to constitutional law, which keep the powers of the federal government on a shorter leash. "I do not have an over-arching judicial philosophy I bring to every case," Roberts said. "I tend to look at a case from the bottom up."

In effect, Roberts was telling the Senate that just because a right isn't spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The Supreme Court, for example, first spelled out the right to privacy, the legal foundation behind abortion rights, in 1965 when it invalidated Connecticut's law against birth control in Griswold vs. Connecticut. "I agree with the Griswold court's conclusion," Roberts said.

TG: He agrees with the conclusion that allowed "privacy" to be appealed to in order for a woman to kill her own offspring. 40 million babies have died because of that case, and Judge Roberts agrees with it. Yet somehow he has the *image* of a conservative pro-lifer. HOW can this be?

That's not what the Right wants to hear. But it gives succor to the Left. "I was very comforted by that," says David Bookbinder, senior attorney for the Sierra Club. "The absolute last thing that the right wing wants to hear is that the Constitution means anything other than what it meant in 1789."

TG: Once again, the Bush administration and Judge Roberts have stabbed the right in the back while embracing and elating the left.

JUDGE ROBERTS is GAY?

There has been a lot of curious circumstantial evidence suggesting that Judge Roberts might have some homosexual leanings.

The fact that he didn't marry until his 40's (and then adopted a couple children) is curious, but of course it doesn't prove any sodomite proclivities.

The fact that he worked for the lavendar lobby in passing the most important sodomite rights bill in history (one that puts our personal homes, churches, and businesses under the control of the queers) is a lot more serious of a matter. It doesn't mean that Roberts himself is a homosexual, but he certaily supported the queer cause in a huge way.

But the homosexual accusations are getting closer to home. This website claims that Robert's adopted children are queer:

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2005/08/judge_roberts_k.html

This is an anti-Bush site and contains a lot of mockery, but dozens of sources are picking up on this claim (as any internet search will reveal), suggesting it is not simply a spoof.

But that's not the worst of it. Texe Marrs comes right out and pins the tail on the doggy (sodomites are also called dogs in the Bible):

http://www.texemarrs.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant/merchant.mv+Screen=PROD&Store_Code=catalog&Product_Code=3305&Category_Code=This+Months+Power+of+Prophecy+Radio+Programs

Homosexual barbarian Judge John Roberts, Jr., has been nominated by President Bush for the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts became infamous for supporting homosexual organizations. He was such an enthusiastic supporter he worked for the queers pro bono (at no charge). ... Among those outed as queers and homos: ... John Roberts, Jr.—Bush’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice (Surprise!)

You'll have to get the cassette if you want his documentation, but Bro. Marrs doesn't make claims he can't defend, since the IRS has already gone after him (unsuccessfully) in the past.

ROBERTS UPGRADES PRO-ROE POSITION

Now the case that has caused rampant abortion is not only "law", and "settled" according to Judge Roberts, it's also "respected". Won't be long until it's "loved and cherished".

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/014849.html

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050913/ap_on_go_su_co/roberts_38

Roberts: Abortion law is 'entitled to respect'

WASHINGTON -- When asked about abortion, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Tuesday said the concept of legal precedent is a "very important consideration." On the second day of his confirmation hearings, Roberts said that as of 1992, when the Supreme Court ruled in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the high court has emphasized the principles that had been settled for years. "It's entitled to respect under those principles," Roberts said. "I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent," Roberts said. "It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision was wrongly decided."

ROBERTS to be more like BREYER, says FARAH

Ann Coulter has been the only mainstream conservative Republican sounding the alarm against Judge Roberts (along with true conservative Constitution party stalwarts like Howard Phillips and Michael Peroutka), but World Net Daily's editor Joseph Farah has finally seen the light and joined the "reject Roberts" faction.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46291

I was wrong about Roberts

Posted: September 13, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

John Roberts still has most conservatives buffaloed.

They just can't believe George W. Bush would betray them so boldly.

But he has.

Even I, the ultimate skeptic, am just beginning to fathom the extent of the shell game that has been played on conservatives – most of whom are actively working on behalf of the confirmation of a new chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who will make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like a moderate.

That's right.

Up until now, I've been comparing Roberts to Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. I've got news for you. He's worse.

...

Stephen Breyer. That's who Roberts most resembles, according to his friend.

This is what conservatives got for all their hard work on behalf of George W. Bush – a betrayal. Conservatives were told they had nowhere else to go in the presidential election if they cared about the U.S. Supreme Court.

And what did they get? Not Souter. Not Kennedy. But Breyer.

TG: Yep, we could've gotten that from John Kerry. And, hold on to your hat - the other vacancy will probably be filled by someone even worse.

ROBERTS for CHIEF JUSTICE!

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46153

He's not even confirmed to the Court yet, and President Bush has already committed to making him the new Chief Justice, replacing the late William Rehnquist.

Shouldn't a sitting justice have to be elevated to the high seat?

With Supreme Court justices appointed to lifetime terms, will the veterans appreciate the new kid on the block, with absolutely NO experience on the high Court, being immediately elevated to the top? (assuming he wil be confirmed)

As young as he is, Judge Roberts will likely be Chief Justice for a loooong time. Do we have a dictator for life running our Supreme Court, and leading their unconstitutional legislation from the bench?