John Roberts is Bush Pick for SCOTUS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey countertop, do you know Roberts at all? I'm not asking you to tell me what he looks like naked, but any clues as to his RKBA philosophy would be much appreciated. I am partly comforted by his Federalist Society membership, but I would love something more solid.
 
Beerslurpy, I don't want you to think I don't love you anymore or anything, but if you ever again begin a sentence with "omg lol" for any reason I will personally take incriminating pictures of the techies at your ISP and then blackmail them into cutting off your internet access for life.

That is all.
:neener:
 
Countertop-------Thanks. Maybe when I googled him before it was a different Roberts in a different case.. I'll keep looking.
 
Hey countertop, do you know Roberts at all? I'm not asking you to tell me what he looks like naked, but any clues as to his RKBA philosophy would be much appreciated. I am partly comforted by his Federalist Society membership, but I would love something more solid.

I just know him by reputation - which is sterling - and having read a couple of his opinions, but I've never had business directly before him.
 
Last edited:
I would just advise that before people jump to conclusions - like the worst of the left - they actually look into the guy. The claims that he is unknown are ludicrous. He is very well known within legal circles - and has perhaps the finest reputation of any Supreme Court advocate in a long long time.

Which raises an interesting point - how do most of the folks (the non DC lawyer types) know anything about anyone who would be nominated??? If you knew something about him, I'd be shocked and worried that he was legislating from the bench.

Now, time will tell if he is a good choice or not. My hunch is that he will be just fine. He clerked for both Rehnquist and Friendly and is well regarded in conservative DC circles - he plays the game well and that should make him tough to oppose. Now, he is the perfect candidate - which is a bit disconcerting - but I've never criticized someone cause they did a great job at whatever they set out to do.
 
Last edited:
Roe was bad case law. if it falls it's going to be a comment on how bad the SCOTUS mangled things to come to the decision. It won't be a definitional comment on abortion itself. That will come from the states(as it should have all along). A few will flat ban it. Most will ban all but first trimester abortions. A small few will remain as liberal as it is today.

Also, it won't bring out leftist voters. We saw every vote the left could turn out with the last election. There are no more. It may, OTOH, bring out a few more conservatives. Also, most people don't support abortion on demand. They support abortion under narrowly defined circumstances(if at all). Personally I have never met a "mainstream" individual who supported abortion as it exists today. The only such supporters I have encountered are of the flaming moonbat left variety who vote Dem exclusively anyway.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but the line posted earlier about his apparent stance on property rights gives me pause.
 
> insouciance toward arroyo toads

I don't know about you, but I'm feelin' pretty insouciant towards the buggers myself. :evil:
 
Kim,

Actually, I ought to clarify things a bit.

While Robert's wasn't a judge in the DC Circuits Seegars opinion, he was part of the En Banc panel that denied the petition for rehearing. However, he joined Sentelle and Randloph in dissenting from the denial of rehearing - and thus came down on the side of the 2nd Amendment.

In federal appellate practice - the first appeal beyond the trial court is to a "panel" of the Circuit Court. These panels are usually made up of 3 members of the Court of Appeals who rule on the appeal. Their decision is final in 90+% of appeals, however, as an intermediate step before appealing to the Supreme Court, you can request that the En Banc (or full quorum of judges) Court of Appeals rehear the case. These petitions are rarely granted.

In Seegars - if Triggerfinger is correct (I have no reason to doubt him, he has usually been pretty reliable, but I haven't read the actual denial of petition so can't really comment on it) then he was involved in the Seegars case, just in a very minor role - dissenting along with two other jurists from the decision of the court not to rehear the case.
 
Not an abortion comment. Honestly.

Roe was bad case law. if it falls it's going to be a comment on how bad the SCOTUS mangled things to come to the decision.

RoeVWade was good because it was based on the notion of constitutional privacy, of which, gun registration and any other thing you do would be there for the government to do with as they please. Though I am pretty sure that no other court decision was based on RVW outside of abortion. Too bad in my opinion, just due to the fact that I like the idea of the government being able to notkeep tabs on me, not to mention it would shut down the drug war etc...

Roberts, being a constitutionalist/federalist could decide against such measures as there is no guaranty of privacy in the constitution, thus opening the way for registration and what not, being that registration is hardly an infringement of bearing and keeping.
 
Roberts is not good enough by a long shot! He's a girly man. I want Janice Brown. Her "peers" (socialist judges) call her "clinically cold" and think she "lacked compassion and intellectual tolerance for opposing views". :D

I want an @$$ kicker, not a shoe licker.

David
 
I disagree, Mr. Tuffpaws.

I think there is a long history of privacy in the constitution - most notably in the 1st Amendment's right to assembly which has been applied to participation in private organizations (membership of which has until recent history always been allowed to remain private) as well as the 4th Amendment's protections against search and seizures and the 5th Amendment's protection against self incrimination. Out of these grows the very similar notion that your exercise of a fundamental right IS protected by the notion of privacy.

Where RvW (actually, I believe it was in Griswold v Connecticut) got it wrong, was in suggesting that killing a baby was somehow a fundamental right just like the other rights in the constitution. Now, this doesn't mean the court couldn't have found a way to allow the murders to take place, only that their method of doing so was very very very sloppy - and most lawyers (regardless of beliefs) will agree it was a sloppy decision (layers like sloppy decisions, cause they keep lawyers rich as we argue all the loopholes we find)
 
Roe v Wade didnt legalize the killing of babies- it legalized the killing of non-viable fetuses while setting third trimester fetuses (which are presumably viable) off limits.

This is in line with legal tradition that dates back to before the founding. Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (a book which had a great influence on American law) ...

In The Absolute Rights of Individuals he agrees with Roe that life begins "when the fetus stirs in the womb" not at conception.
Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.14 But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.15

An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it;16 and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born.17 And in this point the civil law agrees with ours.

It is quite arguable that the founders intended the 9th amendment to contains a right to dispose of not-yet-viable fetuses. A womans body is her own property, including any clumps of cells that may not be independent human beings yet. Note that Blackstone indicates that even killing of a viable fetus is not looked upon as anything more serious than a bad misdemeanor. Certainly not murder.

Indeed, he says exactly this in the chapter on Homicide where in discussing the murder of live-born bastard infants he says:
To kill a child in its mother's womb, is now no murder, but a great misprision: but if the child be born alive, and dies by reason of the potion or bruifes it received in the womb, it is murder in such as administered or gave them.
 
Back to the topic at hand.

It seems to me, on the surface of things, that Roberts isn't an ideolog but a party stooge. (In other words, he's Mr. Republican) Which isn't that bad.

As of right now, I don't see much changing on the SCOTUS with Roberts on the court. Even the recent "controversial" decisions were largely backed up by existing law, and he doesn't seem that "activist". (Which is good.)
 
Speaking of which, I have been searching my ass off on google and it is as if John Roberts has neither touched a gun nor said the word gun his entire life. Not exactly an Alito or a Kozinski.
No kidding. It is hard as hell to find 2a stance info on the potential nominees, this one in particular.

Oh, and I love DU. Whenever I get disappointed with the spineless sell-outs in the Republican party, I just head over to DU and get a screen-full of reasons why despite not liking Republicans, I am DEFINITELY not a Democrat. What a bunch of brainwashed, white-tower, elitist, psuedo-intellectual hypocrites.

Still wish I could find some good info on Rove, though.
 
This is from back on page two, so someone may have responded, but...

Roberts joined Sentelle in questioning whether the Endangered Species Act is constitutional under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The regulation in question prevented developers from building on private lands in order to protect a rare species of toad, and Roberts noted with deadpan wit that "the hapless toad ... for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California," and therefore could not affect interstate commerce

Raich's hapless cannabis plants lived their entire lives in California. Stewart's machine guns never crossed a state line. If he also thinks those things are not interstate commerce, I might just like the guy...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top