ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER

A "REPRESENTATIVE" COURT?

2010-05-28T11:21:00.000-07:00

If Elena Kagan is confirmed as the 112th Supreme Court Justice, it will be the first time in U.S. history that the court has been without a Protestant/Evangelical/Baptist voice.

The Court will be made up of 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews.

I thought the idea of having female, black, and Hispanic justices was to make it more "representative"? Is America 70% Catholic, 30% Jewish, and 0% Protestant/Baptist/Evangelical?

IF GEORGE BUSH WOULD'VE

2010-05-11T19:36:00.000-07:00

appointed a supreme court candidate who:

* Disagreed with the view that the courts should take the lead in creating a more just society (IOW, is against "judicial activism").

* Supported a ban on late-term abortions.

* Believed the death penalty could be broadened by States.

* Was against warrantless wiretaps on Americans.

* Thought the Heller case that struck down Washington D.C.'s anti-gun laws showed that the 2nd Amendment provided "strong ... protection".

Why, every conservative Republican would've been giddy and trumpeted these positions, ignoring any of the nominee's liberal leanings. In fact, if you read this blog, you'll see that's exactly what they did in the cases of Alito and Roberts.

However, the above are the positions of Barack Obama's nominee, Elena Kagen, according to McClatchy News Services NY Times article. Based on the above she might be more conservative than the Republican justice she will be replacing, John Paul Stevens.
*

GOP COURT GAVE US ABORTION, SODOMY, & PORN

2009-06-09T23:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.covenantnews.com/trewhella090609.htm

A Republican Supreme Court Gave America Abortion, Sodomy, And Pornography

By Pastor Matt Trewhella The Covenant News ~ June 09, 2009

Obama has nominated a Supreme Court justice. She will in all likelihood turn out to be pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. Obama is rabidly pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, and birds of a feather flock together.

If you were one of those people who could not bring yourself to vote for the lesser-of-two-evils (have you noticed that the lesser-evil gets more evil every four years?) this past November, you are probably hearing from some of your friends right about now saying – "See, I told you to vote for McCain just so Obama couldn't appoint the next Supreme Court justice."

You may be feeling bad or even pained in your conscience about this – but don't. Historical fact reveals that you would have gotten nothing different with a Republican-appointed justice. The truth is Obama's nominee has the same values as the majority of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices over the last 40 years.

If you doubt what I am saying, just take a few moments to look at the facts.

1.) The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was given to us a by a majority of Republican-appointed justices. Six of the seven justices which voted in support of Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republican presidents.

2.) Roe v. Wade has been upheld and legalized abortion maintained by a majority of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices for the last 36 years. Since the Roe. v. Wade decision, Republican-appointed justices have always been in the majority by a margin of at least 7-2. Currently, 7 of the 9 justices are Republican-appointed.

3.) The 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case which decriminalized sodomy was given to us by a majority of Republican-appointed justices. Four of the six justices which voted in support of decriminalizing sodomy were appointed by Republican presidents.

4.) Remember also, it was a Republican-appointed majority Court which banned school prayer in the 1962 Engle v. Vitale case, and which opened the floodgates of pornography in the 1973 Miller v. California case.

Every four years, Christian people in this nation are stampeded into voting for the Republican presidential candidate based on the mantra - "whoever is elected President will appoint the next Supreme Court justices!" Republicans insist that we must vote for their presidential candidate in order to insure that liberal justices are not appointed to the Supreme Court.

The historical facts however, show that their assertion is absolutely false. When you look at the facts there is not a lick of difference between Obama's nominee and what we have gotten from the Republicans for the last 40 years.

Until Christians take the Republicans to task for this, nothing will change. The Republicans find legalized abortion too politically advantageous to actually outlaw abortion. How then would they be able to keep the Christians in line?

The truth is our nation finds itself in its current state because the people have turned their backs on God and are living in rebellion to him; the pulpits are full of hirelings and whores; and American Christians have embraced a superficial, narcissistic, man-centered Christianity. No political party can remedy this situation. Only the pure preaching of God's Word calling men to repentance and faith in Christ.

OBAMA TABS BUSH JUDGE FOR SC

2009-06-06T00:01:00.000-07:00

http://lc.org/media/9980/attachments/supreme_court_nom_sotomayer.pdf

Prior appointments: Nominated by Senior President Bush to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1991.

TG: Oh look! She was put into the federal judiciary by Poppa George Bush! She must be a conservative, like the guy she is replacing, David Souter.

See the difference it makes when we have Republicans appointing judges rather than Democrats? Bush appointed a conservative female judge named Sonia Sotomayer. Obama is naming a liberal dyke judge named Sonia Sotomayer. We should protest Obama's liberal appointment, but support Bush's conservative appointment.

* Wrote the opinion and upheld the Mexico City Policy prohibiting federal funding of overseas abortions

* Held that a revocation of plaintiffs permit to use the town hall annex for their worship services violated the First Amendment because the policy granted the town unfettered discretion to deny applications in Amandola v. Town of Babylon.

* Held that the interest of avoiding violations of the Establishment Clause on some public properties . . . not closely associated with the seat of government did not constitute a compelling justification for content-based restrictions on expressive conduct in Flamer v. City of White Plains

TG: See there? She is at least as conservative as the guy she is replacing, David Souter.

ALITO SAYS CONSTITUTION BELOW "STARE DECISIS"

2006-01-11T13:57:00.000-08:00

***

The following comments offered by Samuel Alito should disqualify him from the bench:

ALITO: That's not a formality to me, that's the way in which I think a judge or a justice has to address legal issues. And I think thatis very important. And I don't know a way to answer a question about how I would decide a constitutional question that might come up inthe future, other than to say I would go through that whole process. I don't agree with the idea that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis.

SCHUMER: It doesn't always, but sometimes...

SPECTER: Let him finish his answer, Senator Schumer.

ALITO: I don't agree with the theory that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis. There would be no room for the doctrine of stare decisis in constitutional law if that were the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/politicsspecial1/text-day2.html?pagewanted=all

Did you all notice this? Alito said it twice, so you can't help but notice it. Alito REJECTS the idea that the Constitution always trumps stare decisis! In other words, there are times when stare decisis trumps the Constitution!

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not stare decisis. Therefore, Alito's comment alone disqualifies him from the Bench.

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

ALITO SUPPORTS SPYING on AMERICANS

2005-12-24T17:04:00.000-08:00

***

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_go_su_co/alito_9;_ylt=AnbVhHoB6qxYDZ_
yW41RUftuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Alito Defended Officials From Wiretap Suits

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps when he worked for the Reagan Justice Department, documents released Friday show.

He advocated a step by step approach to strengthening the hand of officials in a 1984 memo to the solicitor general. The strategy is similar to the one that Alito espoused for rolling back abortion rights at the margins.

The release of the memo by the National Archives comes when President Bush is under fire for secretly ordering domestic spying of suspected terrorists without a warrant.

The memo dealt with whether government officials should have blanket protection from lawsuits when authorizing wiretaps. "I do not question that the attorney general should have this immunity," Alito wrote. "But for tactical reasons, I would not raise the issue here."

ALITO PROMISES to KEEP KILLING BABIES

2005-12-05T13:04:00.000-08:00

According to the pro-abortion Senator Specter (whom Bush helped defeat a pro-lifer in the last election), Sam Alito took some horrible positions pertaining to the Constitution and abortion.

Alito opined that killing babies is "embedded in the culture" and so we must follow it as precedent (stare decisis). Why the pro-aborters didn't have to follow "stare decisis" when abortion was codified in 1973, was not explained.

Alito referred to a woman's "right to choose". He didn't specify WHAT women had the right to choose, but the implication was to choose to murder their babies. Of course nobody should have the "right to choose" murder.

Alito promised he would not let any potential backbone get in the way, since his personal views would not be considered if they might stop the baby-killing culture.

And to cap it off, Alito referred to the Constitution as a "living thing", rather than a static, settled document. IOW, it can evolve to be twisted to mean anything the Courts desire.

No Christian Constitutionalist has any business supporting Sam Alito for the Supreme Court.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1366735

Alito Assures Specter on Abortion Views

Sen. Specter Says Nominee Alito Assured Him He Would Not Let Personal Views Drive Rulings

By DAVID ESPO AP Special CorrespondentWASHINGTON Dec 2, 2005 —

Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, who expressed strong opposition to abortion rights two decades ago, pledged Friday that his personal views on the subject "would not be a factor" in his rulings, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Alito had told him in a private meeting that "with respect to his personal views on a woman's right to choose … that is not a matter to be considered in the deliberation on a constitutional issue of a woman's right to choose. The judicial role is entirely different."

Specter, who supports abortion rights, said he was neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with what he had heard earlier in his office, and emphasized that he would question Alito vigorously about the issue at confirmation hearings scheduled to begin Jan. 9.

Specter also said he had questioned Alito about the importance of legal precedent, known as the principle of "stare decisis. "

Judge Alito says that when a matter is embedded in the culture, it's a considerable factor in the application of stare decisis," the senator said. He added that Alito had told him that the Constitution "is a living thing in the sense that it protects rights by setting out principles to be applied in changing circumstances."

ALITO SUPPORTS SODOMY

2005-11-03T20:47:00.000-08:00

We've already seen that Alito is no champion of the pro-life cause, now we see he has championed sodomite "rights".

Whew! Good thing we don't have John Kerry nominating all these pro-abortion, pro-sodomite justices like Sam Alito, John Roberts, and Harriet Miers (for more information on their staunch, immoral, liberal qualifications see http://robertsrules.blogspot.com).

http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/archives/016027.html

Alito Backed 'Gay' Rights

http://www.aboms.com/

Alito Backed Special Rights for Sodomites

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/02/alito_writing_backed_privacy_gay_rights/

PRINCETON, N.J. -- As a senior at Princeton University, Samuel A. Alito Jr. chaired an undergraduate task force that recommended the decriminalization of sodomy, accused the CIA and the FBI of invading the privacy of citizens, and said discrimination against gays in hiring "should be forbidden." The report, issued in 1971 by Alito and 16 other Princeton students, stemmed from a class assignment to study the "boundaries of privacy in American society" and to recommend ways to protect individual rights. The far-ranging report, which satisfied a requirement for public policy students and which was stored in the university's Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, provided a glimpse of a more liberal Alito than the jurist is now perceived. "From the fact that someone thinks legislators ought to forbid discrimination," he said, "it does not follow that the person would necessarily think that the Supreme Court of the United States ought to hold that the Constitution forbids discrimination against gays."

College Report by Alito Supported 'Gay' Rights

http://www.baltimoresun.com

WASHINGTON -- As a college senior at Princeton University, Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote a report that recommended the repeal of laws that made sex between gays a crime and urged new anti-discrimination laws for gays in the workplace. The report's one paragraph of recommendations on "Laws concerning Homosexuality" is likely to draw the most attention, now that Alito has been nominated to the Supreme Court. "The Conference voted to recommend that the current sodomy law be changed," he wrote. "The Conference believes that no private sexual act between consenting adults should be forbidden. Of course, acts of a coercive nature, acts involving minors and acts which offend public decency should still be banned. Discrimination against homosexuals in hiring should be forbidden."

TG: Are brothers and sisters "consenting adults"? How about fathers and daughters?

ALITO and ABORTION

2005-11-03T20:11:00.000-08:00

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/016025.html

Judge Alito Is Besmirched With the Blood of Babies, He Approved Killing Children By Abortion in Three Federal Cases

The word "abortion" appears in 22 decisions in which Judge Alito participated in his 15 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, according to searches of legal databases. Judge Alito voted in support of the abortion rights side of the argument in three cases. In 1997, he joined a decision applying the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion, to uphold a New Jersey law that let parents sue on behalf of deceased children but not deceased unborn children. In 2000, he joined a decision applying Stenberg v. Carhart - another 2000 decision that struck down a Nebraska law that banned a procedure its critics call partial-birth abortion - to a similar New Jersey law. In 1995, he cast the deciding vote in a 2-to-1 decision striking down parts of a Pennsylvania law that restricted abortion. The law, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, included a provision that required a doctor's certification in cases in which a publicly funded abortion was being performed because the woman's life was said to be in danger.

Alito Supported Abortion In Three Cases

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/015998.

htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/02/politics/02abortion.html

'Sam is not going to overturn Roe'

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/016030.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/03/ap/politics/mainD8DKT7C0A.shtml shtml

TG: I could've told you that the minute Bush nominated him (in fact I probably did) - but it's nice to have some confirming voices.

Alito Conformation Process:

WASHINGTON -- Five current or former judges on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interviewed by The Associated Press described Alito as thoughtful, intelligent and fair. They said he has great respect for precedent-setting decisions and none of them offered that he would be likely to vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Senior Judge Leonard Garth, a Nixon appointee for whom Alito served as law clerk from 1976-77 before they became colleagues in 1990, said, "Sam is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade," said Garth, a moderate conservative who signed on to a 2000 abortion-rights decision involving a procedure foes call "partial-birth" abortion that Alito criticized as too expansive.

ALITO: A DEATH REGULATOR

2005-11-01T12:40:00.000-08:00

http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/015986.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-31-alito-usat-analysis_x.htm

Federal Judge Samuel Alito: A Death Regulator

As Federal Appetite Judge, Alito's Record Shows He Supports Killing Babies After 'Husband-Notification'

WASHINGTON -- When Samuel Alito had considered Pennsylvania's spousal notification law, he wrote that it did not put a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking to end a pregnancy. He said it "merely requires a married woman desiring an abortion to certify that she has notified her husband." He said the state Legislature could have reasonably concluded that the law furthered "a husband's interests in the fetus." Alito, taking a narrower view of Supreme Court abortion precedents than his colleagues, also emphasized that the requirement would not have great practical effect because the overwhelming number of abortions in America are sought by unmarried women. When the Supreme Court rejected that view, it said the focus should be on the women who would fall under the husband-notification requirement, not those who would not. The majority stressed that state regulation of abortion has a greater impact on the pregnant woman's liberty than it does on a husband's interests.

USA Today photo caption: {{ Judge Samuel Alito's reputation as a jurist who opposes abortion is built largely on his decision in one case. }}

TG: And that ONE case is a crock, as we are seeing.

{{ Alito — unlike Bush's first two high court nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Harriet Miers — also has a record on abortion }}

TG: What? Just yesterday a news source was crowing that Alito had an extensive paper trail like Roberts (and unlike Miers). Now they are saying Roberts didn't have as much of a paper trail. Which will it be tomorrow?

{{ Alito's record on abortion is not uniformly against such rights. In a 2000 decision, he cited Supreme Court precedent in voting against a New Jersey ban on a procedure that critics call "partial-birth" abortion. Alito emphasized that the appeals court was bound by an earlier Supreme Court ruling that struck down Nebraska's ban on the procedure because the law was vaguely written and lacked an exception for when the procedure is necessary to protect a woman's health. }}

TG: Had Alito opposed the NJ PBA ban on the grounds that it might have recognized other forms of abortion as legitimate (like Bush's federal PBA ban did), I could not hold him at fault, but that's not the case. He clearly is in favor of various exceptions where abortion should be allowed - including the HEALTH of the mother. That's much different from an exception for the LIFE of the mother - but most people look right past that. Exceptions for the life of the mother are also unnecessary, but at least those would truly be limited. ANY pregnancy has some health risks, so to appeal to a HEALTH exception is to take a 100% PRO-ABORTION position in principle.

So some might say that Alito is pro-life with exceptions, which would be the same thing as saying he was pro-abortion with exceptions. But with the 'health' exception, in principle he is 100% pro-abortion. Any woman who gets sick (or might get sick) from her pregnancy is eligible to kill her baby, according to Alito's exception.

Pro-aborts screamed for an exception for the LIFE of the mother. That sounded reasonable to conservative Christians so they allowed for it. Then the pro-death crowd slyly substituted the word 'health' for 'life' and has us arguing on their terms and has professed pro-lifers supporting 100% abortion via the health exception.

SCAT "SCALITO"

2005-10-31T14:39:00.000-08:00

GRAPHIC: Conservative Christians will refuse to look under the outer layer of garments to see that underneath we have yet another wolf in sheep's clothing. Once again Lucy will pull the football away from Charlie Brown, all the while promising "This time for sure!"

Sam Alito is a typical pro-abortion, pro-sodomite FAKE conservative, but the Christian right will again fawn over him like teenaged girls at a Beatles concert. Of course any Christian with the discernment of a jack-o-lantern should know by now that GW Bush would never nominate a legitimate conservative to an important position.

SUPPORTS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/015956.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100180.htmlnt/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103100180.html

{{ In 2004, he ruled in favor of a complaint brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by a boy badly bullied by his classmates who was seeking legal relief but had been rebuffed by a U.S. District Court. }}

A typical case of giving certain classes of people special privileges. Usually it's children, women, or blacks and is done to create sympathy for the victim so unjust special privileges can be passed on their behalf - which are thus DISCRIMINATORY. This one uses the handicapped to tug on our heartstrings. While it's appalling that kids would bully someone who was apparently disabled (and a lot of things are used to claim disability that weren't in the past, so maybe he wasn't even truly disabled after all), they should be dealt with the same way as anyone else. This kind of logic is what leads to protection of sodomites as a privileged class.

{{ He also authored a majority opinion granting federal court review to an African American who could not get state courts to hear his claim of racial bias on the part of a juror in his trial. The case involved a juror who used racial epithets outside the confines of the jury room. }}

I wonder if a white person could ever get a review because of racial bias against him? Oliver North was tried by a jury that was nearly all black. Think any of them ever spoke disparagingly of a white person outside the courtroom?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1124387,00.html

Bush's New Nominee: Not Always on the Same Page as Scalia

{{ Alito argued passionately with other members of the 3rd Circuit Appeals Court that a disabled woman, Pauline Thomas, should be granted benefits because she had been laid off from her job as an elevator operator and could not find a new job since the position of "elevator operator" had virtually disappeared from the economy. }}

Once again Alito supported creating a special privileged class out of disabled people. This puts someone who supports EQUAL and JUST treatment in the position of looking like they are cold-hearted and against the handicapped (or children, or women, or blacks, or sodomites, or whoever is used).

A couple of years ago my department at work was shut down because the material had become obsolete. I had to take a pay cut and a lower position. Should disabled people be forced to pay me the difference? Why not? If I am supposed to pay them if their job disappears, why shouldn't they pay me when mine disappears?

BTW, he was opposed in this opinion by none other than Antonin Scalia.

NO BURDEN on WOMEN'S ACCESS to ABORTION

{{ Citing previous opinions of O'Connor, Alito wrote that an abortion regulation is unconstitutional only if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's access to the procedure. }}

WHAT? Isn't this guy supposed to be a pro-life hero like Scalia? But he believes a law is unconstitutional if it imposes burden upon a woman's access to an abortion? Wouldn't a BAN on abortions impose a burden upon a woman's access to abortion? Wouldn't ANY restrictions on abortion do so? How about a ban on partial-birth abortions? Would that impose a burden upon a woman's access to abortion? Isn't the idea of being pro-life to try to stop abortion? Not with Alito - stopping abortion would impose an undue burden upon a woman's access to abortion.

Alito is not pro-life, he is not anti-abortion. He is certainly not in favor of preventing women from having abortions. He is being lauded for supporting spousal notification. Had it passed, it would have required wives tell their husbands before they killed the baby that also belonged to him. That doesn't mean he could do anything to prevent it, only that she had to tell him as she was walking out the door.

The Supreme Court (Justice O'Connor in particular) used Alito's opinion to CONFIRM the fact that spousal notification WOULD impose a burden on abortion because it might cause women to reconsider having one. Using this "undue burden" logic actually PREVENTS abortions from even being quelled, much less stopped. ANY action that lessens abortion would be considered as an "undue burden" by the fact that less women might have abortions.

Alito supports the "undue burden" concept, but he believed spousal notification did not present an undue burden. However spousal CONSENT would, as would parental consent, as would ANY restrictions that might cause women to reconsider killing her baby.

JESUS the SNOWMAN

{{ He wrote a majority opinion in ACLU v. Schundler , holding that a city's holiday display that included a creche and menorah did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it included secular symbols as well, such as Frosty the Snowman. }}

So Frosty the Snowman is constitutional according to Alito, but Jesus Christ alone is not? Read mine and Reed Heustis' comments on this "Lemon Test" philosophy to secularize religion at http://robertsrules.blogspot.com/2005/08/was-roberts-right.html.

In short it determines that religious things are constitutional only if they can be made secular. To support such a thing is to support making God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, prayer, and church secular. That does not protect our constitutional religious liberty - that DILUTES our religious liberty.

BIRDS of a FEATHER?

{{ In 1987, he became the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, where he earned a powerful friend--Michael Chertoff, then his deputy and now the Director of Homeland Security. When Alito was nominated to the appeals court, he pressed for Chertoff to succeed him as U.S. Attorney, helping him to rise above other candidates for the job. }}

Read about Alito's good friend Chertoff at http://bushscoreboard2ndterm.blogspot.com/2005/02/11a-11b-and-11c-homeland-czar-can.html. Chertoff helped cover up the OKC bombing, the WTC basement bombing, the death of Vince Foster, and the 9-11 WTC bombing. He has defended interests of Osama bin-Laden and was the ONLY attorney Bill Clinton didn't fire when he took office (http://bushscorecard.blogspot.com/2005/01/61-bush-tabs-clinton-keeper-for.html).

{{ In 2003, he was accused of conflict of interest after he dismissed a lawsuit against the Vanguard mutual fund. It emerged after the decision that he had a substantial amount invested in Vanguard. He denied any wrongdoing, though he immediately removed himself from the case when the plaintiff requested a new hearing. }}

Protecting his investments?

FREE VULGAR SPEECH and HARRASSMENT

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19alito.htm

{{ In Saxe v. State College Area School District, Alito, writing for the panel, argued that the school does not have the right to punish students for vulgar language or harassment when it doesn't disrupt the school day. }}

Alito believes vulgar language and harassment should be protected as free speech. I don't think he even requires "Frosty the Snowman" to balance it out like he does with religious expressions.

The bottom line is that Alito has made rulings that favor abortion and sodomite protection and his conservative image is indeed only IMAGE.

MIERS WITHDRAWS! SURPRISE!?

2005-10-27T16:21:00.000-07:00

The media reports said:

#Miers' surprise withdrawal stunned Washington on a day when the capital was awaiting news on another front — the possible indictment of senior White House aides in the CIA leak case. #

What was the stunning surprise? World Net Daily and Drudge have been reporting that she was going to quit for over a week.

They will blame this on the just-uncovered pro-choice statements Miers made 12 years ago. But as noted, Farah, Drudge, and others predicted (even guaranteed) her withdrawal long before those comments came to light - so they had nothing to do with the actual reason for her pullout. They will however, make a good, timely EXCUSE to blame it on.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2005/october/1027_conservatives_miers.shtml

"In July of 1993, Miers gave a speech entitled, 'Women and Courage.' She offered glowing praise for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ascension to the Supreme Court and Janet Reno's appointment as the first female attorney general," Bauer reported. "Not many conservatives were excited by either fact."

"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion." Miers said.

"Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago," Miers said.

This whole thing is more orchestrated than professional wrestling. On the *surface*, Miers had far more conservative credentials than Roberts. She had made pro-life statements, she had voted pro-family in issues, she did belong to a conservative church. I had to dig much deeper to get beneath Miers conservative facade than with Roberts. Roberts worked on the landmark Romer pro-queer case. He was wishy-washy on abortion all along. He repudiated God and the Bible at least twice. He was easy to expose as a phony. If either of them might have truly been a conservative deep down inside, it was clearly Miers.

Yet, the conservatives swallowed Roberts hook, line, and sinker. OTOH, it was the conservatives who sunk Miers, despite her more conservative appearing credentials. Why would they fight so hard *against* Miers, but not against Roberts, when Roberts had the most obvious liberal record?

Miers was Bush's Kimba Woods. A sacrificial lamb/goat to pave the way for the nominee they really want passed. Bush will put up an even more obvious liberal, like Gonzales, and the same conservatives who opposed Miers will suddenly go blind and fail to notice his obvious liberal slants.

ROBERTS COURT KILLS FIRST BABY

2005-10-18T18:45:00.000-07:00

Not only did the Roberts court (with no recorded dissent) vote to allow this baby to be killed, it did so in violation of the rights of the state of Missouri to regulate its own prisoners, and without regard to security problems in transporting prisoners, despite the recent case where a transported prisoner killed several people when he broke free from his female guard.

Not bad for just one case. Bush supporters should be proud of their accomplishments.

Isn't it odd that liberals won't support executing a guilty criminal, but they support killing an innocent baby, and using our tax dollars to fund it?

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/015562.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051017/us_nm/court_abortion_dc_4

Roberts Court Kills First Baby

The U.S. Supreme Court under new Chief Justice John Roberts cleared the way on Monday for a pregnant Missouri prisoner to obtain an abortion, despite objections from state officials.

In a brief order without comment or recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.

How Roberts would rule on abortion was a major issue in his confirmation hearings in the Senate. This was the first abortion-related case the court has acted upon since he became chief justice.

Officials said Missouri has a prison policy that female prisoners will be sent out of their institutions for abortions only if the procedure is medically necessary.

They cited Missouri's laws that they said discourage abortions and encourage childbirth. They said any time an inmate is transported outside of a prison it raises possible security issues.

Gov. Matt Blunt expressed disappointment and said the high court's order "is highly offensive to traditional Missouri values and is contrary to state law, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent to facilitate abortions."

MIERS CONVERSION?

2005-10-07T13:04:00.000-07:00

Did a liberal convert into a conservative due to a religious experience? Did a normal woman transform into Wonder Woman?

The rod the Bush-bots are using to try and keep Christians and conservatives in line with the nomination of Harriet Miers is that she had a "religious conversion". This is an effective way to sweep her ultra-liberal, feminist, pro-queer record under the table.

I certainly believe such a conversion can happen and can have such far-reaching, life-changing effects. But there are also many false conversions. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven". The question is, is HER conversion valid? In reading her alleged religious conversion, I see no clear salvation testimony, only that the 60 year old spinster developed a "close relationship" with the male organist of a church that appears to hold to works and baptismal regeneration, rather than solely faith in Jesus Christ.

Supposedly her church is pro-life, but so was Bill Clinton's church, so is Ted Kennedy's, and so is the church of virtually every member of the current Supreme Court. Conversely, George W. Bush's church is rather liberal on abortion and sodomy.

Let's look at Meirs' RECENT record, SINCE her supposed conversion.

Conservatives are Not Amused with the Miers’ Nomination
Ned Ryun (former White House writer)
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?ArticleID=301
Miers emailed me and told me that the message might offend people of other faiths, i.e., that the message was too Christian. She wanted me to change it. (TG: It was a message on a CHRISTMAS card!)

Miers' firm fined big for cheating investors
Texas law group forced to pay $30 million for vouching for clients in Ponzi scheme
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46684 October 5, 2005 © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON – While Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers presided over a major Texas law firm, it was forced to pay more than $30 million to settle claims it vouched for the reputation of two clients who cheated investors out of millions in an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

Miers' brother says he's learning more
By SHEILA FLYNN ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&slug=Miers%20Brother
DALLAS -- Harriet Miers is so private that three days after her nomination to the Supreme Court, even her brother says he is learning things about his younger sister. Robert Miers, 62, said Wednesday that he has prodded his sister to tell him about her work with President Bush, but the most she will ever say is that she chopped wood with him at his Crawford ranch or jogged with him in Washington. "She says everything is confidential," said Roberts Miers.

Miers' time on Dallas City Council provides some insight
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/12837040.htm

In 1991, Miers voted in favor of a council resolution reaffirming economic sanctions Dallas had imposed against South Africa, then under a white minority-rule apartheid government. The council adopted the resolution by a 6-2 vote with three absences. At the time, President George H.W. Bush was considering repealing federal economic sanctions against the country."

As she goes through this nomination process, something like that should cheer the liberals and lead to gnashing of teeth among the very conservative social conservative," said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, Miers' alma mater.

Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women. The agenda item's title: "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan."

Voted in 1991 to ratify a resolution urging the Texas State Legislature to observe the Rev. Martin Luther King's birthday as a state holiday. The council unanimously ratified the resolution.

Voted in 1991 to ratify a resolution supporting passage of the federal North American Free Trade Agreement. The council ratified the resolution by a 7-2-2 vote.

Voted in 1991 in favor of a resolution urging Congress to approve a presidential request for "fast track" trade negotiation authority. The resolution passed 5-2-3.

TG: If this is the result of a religious conversion, I'm glad I got a different one than she did.

JUDGE ROBERTS' FIRST CASE!

2005-10-03T21:44:00.000-07:00

How about that? The Bible is thrown out and a murderer/rapist is kept alive at taxpayer expense. What a wonderful legacy to begin the Roberts court . They rejected the appeal and let the lower court ruling stand that threw the Bible out of the court one it's finished being used in vain to swear in the litigants.

The photo is of the Ukranian President taking his oath in COMMUNIST country, where the Bible is still allowed in court, unlike America.

http://www.mcjonline.com/news/05a/20051003c.shtml

Supreme Court Agrees Jury Erred By Basing Decision On Bible ( ABP) --

The nation's highest court has upheld a Colorado court's ruling that said jurors erred when they consulted biblical law to sentence a murderer to death.

On the first day of its 2005-2006 term Oct. 3, the federal Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear an appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in the case of convicted murderer and rapist Robert Harlan.

The justices also rejected a Florida case involving church-state issues.

A panel of Colorado's highest court in March invalidated Harlan's death sentence, saying jurors should not have taken biblical recommendations for punishment into account when sentencing.

By declining to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Colorado court's decision to stand.

"The judicial system works very hard to emphasize the rarified, solemn and sequestered nature of jury deliberations," read the Colorado court's majority opinion.

"Jurors must deliberate in that atmosphere without the aid or distraction of extraneous texts."

But the minority justices in the 3-2 Colorado decision disagreed.

"The biblical passages the jurors discussed constituted either a part of the jurors' moral and religious precepts or their general knowledge, and thus were relevant to their court-sanctioned moral assessment," they wrote.

Colorado criminal law is unusual in that it requires judges in capital cases to instruct jurors to take into account their own moral convictions in dealing with such sentencing decisions.

According to court papers, one juror testified that she consulted the famous passage in Leviticus 24, in which Hebrew law requires "an eye for an eye."

The decision means that Harlan's sentence will be changed to life without parole. In 1995, he was convicted of raping and murdering a woman near Denver, as well as shooting and paralyzing a woman who was trying to help the victim escape.

© 2005 Associated Baptist Press
© 2005 Maranatha Christian News Service

BLINDFOLD BEING REMOVED on MIERS

2005-10-03T20:22:00.000-07:00

The record is being exposed on Harriet Miers. Just like all of Bush's appointees, she is not conservative at all, no matter what Jay Sekulow peeps or mutters.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46641

Miers' Record Begins to Fill In

Bush pick supported:

International Criminal Court,
homosexual adoptions,
women in combat,
tax hike

The ICC takes away all the constitutional rights of someone who is simply *accused*. No right to sppedy trial, no jury, no evidence, no representation, no appeal, and no presumption of innocence.

Not only was she for women in combat, but she BROKE THE LAW in some cases to allow it. A LAWBREAKER for Supreme Court Justice?

The sodomite agenda and tax hikes are hardly conservative staples, although President Bush is doing his best to change that by naming over a dozen homosexuals to gov't positions. Miers did her part by taking the position that taxpayers should be responsible for paying for AIDS education and patient services.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/oct/03/100301869.html

Miers Backed Gay Civil Rights

By CALVIN WOODWARD ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) -

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas city council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.

Miers answered "Yes" to the survey question, "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?"

She said Dallas had a responsibility in AIDS education and treatment and that she favored more money being spent in that area "assuming need and resources. I do consider the AIDS illness as a serious total community problem." She underlined "total." "

HOW GULLIBLE ARE WE?

2005-10-03T14:35:00.000-07:00

Charlie Brown has fallen for it again. Lucy promised THIS time she would hold the football still so Charlie could kick it (just like last time). But once again, as Charlie ran to the ball with full-speed, at the last second Lucy pulled the ball away and Charlie went sailing and fell hard on his backside.

We've proven beyond dispute that John Roberts is pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-private property, anti-Bible, and generally as liberal as Ted Kennedy (with tons of documented proof, see http://robertsrules.blogspot.com). Now is there anybody still gullible enough to believe that our New World Order President would actually name a true conservative this time? Here is the record on Harriet Miers:

$UPPORTED LIBERAL DEMOCRAT$:

http://www.covenantnews.com/blog/archives/015261.html

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/015260.html

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988.

Miers also gave $1,000 to another prominent Democrat — Lloyd Bentsen, the longtime Texas senator who in 1988 ran for re-election and also was Dukakis' vice presidential choice on the Democratic ticket that year.

Miers contributed $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. in 1988.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46635

President Bush's choice of White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court is receiving praise from both Republicans and Democrats today,

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46632

According to the Drudge Report, former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie admitted today that Miers was a Democrat throughout the 1980s.

That alone should be enough to make any rational conservative Christian reject Miers. Unfortunately, few Christians are rational when it comes to politics. No place else will more Christians be "opposed to themselves" or be "double-minded" than in the political realm.

PRO-GAMBLING

Curiously, like the recently confirmed Judge Roberts, Miss Miers is also a proponent of legalized gambling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4304826.stm

In 1995, Mr Bush appointed Ms Miers as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission for a six-year term.

FIRST WOMAN EVERYTHING

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20041029.html (2004 Questionairre)

Miers, 60, has a string of firsts on her resume that track her quiet but steady march to the top echelons of power: first woman hired by her law firm in 1972, first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985, first woman president of the Texas State Bar in 1992, first woman president of her law firm in 1996.

http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/015229.html

Bush Picks a Feminist to sit on Supreme Court

Miers, who Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession ...

There was a long list of staunchly conservative judges that Democrats were poised to fight, Miers not among them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4304826.stm

Friends and colleagues describe the single woman as assertive and ambitious, Mr. Bush called her "a pit bull in size six shoes".

Hardly biblical, feminine qualities for a lady. This might not be an issue to some, but God said:

Isa 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

NO PRO-LIFE or PRO-FAMILY PROCLIVITIES

There is no reason at all to believe Miss Meir is pro-life. The fact that she has never been married at age 60 makes me suspect she will not oppose the anti-family agenda of the homosexual lobby.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46635

Operation Rescue has come out in opposition to Miers. "We must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia. We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?"

CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS? ROBERTS CAN'T.

2005-09-28T14:18:00.000-07:00

(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

2005-09-28T12:50:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-26T17:33:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-23T17:04:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-22T13:50:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-19T16:30:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-19T16:03:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-17T05:07:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-09-16T11:38:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-15T15:58:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-09-15T15:47:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-15T14:51:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-15T00:35:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-09-13T14:18:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-13T13:50:00.000-07:00

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

2005-09-13T13:34:00.000-07:00

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!

2005-09-05T18:03:00.000-07:00

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?

GOD DOESN'T CREATE NATIONS says ROBERTS

2005-08-25T13:19:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-18T14:29:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-08-18T14:03:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-16T14:44:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-08-16T05:20:00.000-07:00

*
*

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!

2005-08-11T19:55:00.000-07:00

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"

2005-08-11T19:00:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-11T17:59:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-09T10:21:00.000-07:00

*

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

2005-08-08T13:12:00.000-07:00

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;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

2005-08-06T19:01:00.000-07:00

*

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?

2005-08-05T18:40:00.000-07:00

*

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

2005-08-04T14:05:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-04T13:59:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-08-04T13:49:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-04T12:58:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-04T12:29:00.000-07:00

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.html http://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.