THREE STRIKES AGAINST JOHN ROBERTS

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Aug 1, 2005.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Before the chairs were even warm on the night of July 19, 2005 when President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts for the Supreme Court, Establishment organizations lined up in lock step behind Roberts in an effort to ensure his confirmation and to deceive millions. Many of these organizations are "Christian" family institutions.

    What are grassroots Christian voters to think of Roberts? Most of them are gaga over anything Bush does, and so it is no surprise that they will likewise be duped into believing that Roberts is somehow one of the "good guys."

    In fact, a casual perusal of the list of blind Bush/Roberts supporters reveals the Who's Who of false opposition: Focus on the Family, American Center for Law and Justice, American Family Association, Family Research Council, and Christian Coalition, just to name a few.

    While most Christian voters are beginning to understand their duty to get involved in politics today, they unfortunately have not yet developed any sense of discernment. Instead, they are spoon-fed with countless lies by these Establishment organizations, and then they regurgitate them as if they were Gospel.

    But just because organizations say that something is "good" does not mean that it is so. They need to be questioned.

    While many tout Roberts as some sort of an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, Roberts actually fails the Three-Strikes-and-You're-Out test:

    1. Does he understand the proper role of the judiciary within the American Constitutional framework?

    2. Can Roberts be trusted to take the correct principled stand on the Constitutional right to life?

    3. Does Roberts believe in the form of government that the Constitution guarantees?

    Rest Of Article Here
     
  2. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    Do you not think there were just as many leftist organizations that "lined up in lock step" to defeat his nomination?
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    More stuff from the Constitution Party. They never get tired of attacking other Christians for not believing the way they do on political issues and they have perpetual targets because no one believes the way they do.

    Settled Law merely means that it is the current prevailing doctrine and nothing else, which the author of this op-ed must know since he is a lawyer himself.

    Let's face it: the Constitution Party lost the election and have little chance of ever winning an election. The internet gives them an outlet from the wilderness but their works merely confirm that they belong in the wilderness, world without end.
     
  4. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still am somewhat skeptical of him and Ann Coulter was right to caution us to not be too uncritical in supporting his nomination but I was impressed that he has received Phyllis Schlafly's endorsement. If Chuck Baldwin and the CP'ers think she is "Establishment" they are truly nuts.
     
  5. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your right Phyllis Schlafly is NOT "Establishment", I think she has a great organization! From what I know about Roberts, he appears to be a good conservative choice, but because he has only been a judge for two years there is not alot to know about him. I just pray that if confirmed, he is a good conservative justice and will work to restore our Constitutional Republic!

    I agree that Coulter made some very valid arguments that should have conservatives watching Roberts closely and I also didn't like it when I heard Roberts refer to our system of government as a "constitutional democracy".
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Let's face it: you just hate the constitution and love big brother and global governance. [​IMG]
     
  7. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    JG,

    I remain both hopeful and disappointed in the choice of Roberts. If the President has picked a truly conservative stealth candidate who makes it under the Left's radar screen, good for him. But Roberts being unknown means that the President's supporters on Court appointments have no basis to get excited about him either. I think that the CP would be unhappy about a long list of choices that conservatives could get excited about. One in particular that I suspect they would find something to complain about is Michael W. McConnell who, IMO, is the best pick that Bush could make.
     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    Here they are:

    MoveOn.org

    People for the American Way

    United for Peace and Justice

    Alliance for Justice

    ACLU

    National Lawyers Guild

    Center for Constitutional Rights

    Earthjustice

    NARAL

    National Urban League
     
  9. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    fromtheright, I agree McConnell would have been and excellent choice, I also think Janice Rodgers Brown would be a good justice.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Chuck Baldwin
     
  11. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    If there can be a positive, optimistic spin on his "settled law" comment, perhaps it is that in his role as an appellate judge he would not have been in a position to do anything about overturning it (Roe). As a member of the Supreme Court, he could do so.
     
  12. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    And, as to item # 3 in the OP (3. Does Roberts believe in the form of government that the Constitution guarantees?) the fact that he calls it a constitutional democracy doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in the guarantees of that constitution. Yes, his statement means he should have re-taken Poli Sci 101 or had a better professor (or just read The Federalist) but it is ridiculous to assert that he doesn't believe in our form of government, only that he doesn't understand what it should be called. Ours has been called a representative democracy and many other names. Yes, understanding what it is is important. It is more important to understand its basics. If he is a conservative jurist, then I have no doubts that he understands its basics. Not having the name right doesn't mean he's not a conservative. Count on Baldwin and company to dig for such as a reason to oppose someone.
     
  13. Pennsylvania Jim

    Pennsylvania Jim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2000
    Messages:
    7,693
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, either he thinks we are a Democracy, or else he "should have re-taken Poli Sci 101".

    Supreme court material? Makes me a bit nervous.
     
  14. JamesBell

    JamesBell
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    0
    As to the "three strikes":
    Answers 1 and 3 are yes. So, those are eliminated... leaving one strike.

    Now, this won't be popular, but the Constitution does not prevent abortion, it is just as wrong for us to claim it does as it is for the left to claim that the Constitution guarantees them. The Constitution is silent on the issue, which ensures that it should be a state issue. (Unless you think that abusing the Elastic Clause is acceptable.)

    If we want a judge to actually hold to original intent and to properly rule on the issue of abortion, that judge will overturn Roe. However, the judge will not rule in such a way as to make abortions illegal. Rather, he/she will ensure that the issue is left to each of the several states to determine for themselves.

    So, I assume that number 2 can be eliminated as a strike as well. So, to continue the baseball terminology, we have 3 balls and no strikes. Looks like Roberts is about to get a "free pass" to me.
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    It's unfortunate that we're all going to have to listen to and watch this man be vilified and slandered the way he will be.

    I believe he will eventually be confirmed, but not before liberal democrats try to pile on enough dirt to make a mountain.
     
  16. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    I figure the democrats won't pile it that high.
     
  17. fromtheright

    fromtheright
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    JB,

    I think you're exactly right on the Constitution and abortion. I do hope, however, and I think this is the point made with the "settled law" quote, that he doesn't consider himself bound to Roe as a Supreme Court justice. But as to point number two itself, again, I think you're exactly right. Overturning Roe would send it back to the states where it should be.
     
  18. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    It would be good if you are correct, but keep your eye on Kennedy and Schumer. They'll be very agressive and totally nasty. IMHO
     
  19. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Story Continues Below

    This is the kinda thing that makes me go hmmmm? If the Democrats aren't that interested in fighting tooth and nail against Roberts as this piece seems to be saying, then I hafta wonder if they know something we don't.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,900
    Likes Received:
    295
    Maybe. But it seems more likely that they realize they won't be able to portray him as "extreme" and use their filibuster without the so called "nuclear option" being invoked. This they want to avoiud if at all possible.

    They'll still pound him unmercifully in committee.

    Unless or until they fear they will create a backlash in the electorate. But they've never shown themselves to be particularly perceptive in that area.
     

Share This Page

Loading...