Roberts on key issues

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gabriella84, Jul 19, 2005.

  1. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    John Roberts on the issues

    Associated Press

    ABORTION: As a lawyer in the administration of President Bush's father, he helped write a Supreme Court brief that said, "We continue to believe that Roe (v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

    Roberts has greatly softened his stance on abortion rights over the last decade or so. In his previously confirmation hearing, Roberts promised to "uphold the laws of the land, whether they be abortion or any other issue." This will certainly be a key question asked during his upcoming confirmation hearing. If his stance remains moderate, he will find little resistance.

    RELIGION: Roberts unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to rule that public schools could sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. "We do not believe ... that graduation ceremonies pose a risk of coercion," said the brief Roberts helped to write on behalf of the first Bush administration.

    Further study of Roberts' cases and rulings find him to be surprisingly moderate on the issue of religion in schools. He advocated religious activities on a strictly voluntary basis, on the same level as other activities. He has avoided the issue of prayer in public schools.

    ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads.

    Has not been involved in a lot of environmental cases. It will be interesting to learn his opinions on these matters.

    CRIMINAL MATTERS: His votes on the bench have been mixed. He ruled in favor of a man who challenged his sentence for fraud, then said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a train station in Washington.

    Roberts has consistently been a proponent of victims' rights. He is a hardliner who sticks more to previous cases and guidelines than attempting to re-interpret the law. This could raise concerns on both sides, since his stance has not consistently favored either.


    POLICE SEARCHES: Joined an appeals court ruling in 2004 that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are looking for evidence of a crime.

    Again, Roberts is tough on criminals and crime. This will earn his votes on both sides.

    MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Roberts was part of a unanimous decision last week that allowed the Pentagon to proceed with plans to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

    This issue could hurt Roberts more than abortion. Democrats (and even some Republicans) will want to know his opinions on the abuses at Gitmo and other military prisons. He will be face serious questions about military secrecy and adherence to the codes of wartime conduct.
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I disagree about your assessment regarding military tribunals. The majority of Americans support using military tribunals for terrorists. It's only the moveon.org Left that thinks terrorists should be afforded the same rights as American citizens.
     
  3. bock2911
    Offline

    bock2911 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, I do agree that terrorists really can't be tried in standard American courts. But I think using US military tribunals isn't the best solution. Wouldn't it be better to try them in some sort of court similiar to what was used after WWII for war criminals? Because terrorsist aren't just American problems, but a problem for a lot of different countries in the world. Give them a shot to prosecute the terrorists too.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    You mean something like the ICC? No.
     
  5. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Those were military tribunals.... International military tribunals, but military tribunals none the less.
     
  6. bock2911
    Offline

    bock2911 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah, like I said, use what was used after WWII. I should of stated that, yes, they were International Military Tribunals, with people from most of the allies, if I remember correctly, on the court. I just think that we need to let other countries get involved in some of these. It shows more of a unified international front on terrorsists.
     
  7. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    It's misleading to use arguments made for a cause while he was an attorney...he was arguing on behalf of a client - not from his personal convictions, necessarily
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,220
    I know this really is difficult for you on the left to understand but there is nothing inconstistant between his positions. Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. but as an appellate Judge the decision was binding on him. Regardless of whether he wants it to be overturned or not he doesn't have the authority to overturn a Supreme Court decision, atleast he wont until he is confirmed. His personal stance on Roe V Wade was irrellevent as an Appellate judge because he was bound to follow the law of the land. And as much a travesty Roe V Wade is, it is the law of the land. I understand that following the law is a difficult concept for liberals but you really should learn to understand it better.

    How exactly is his position any different? He doesn't believe religion should be coerced. He didnt believe that prayer at graduation ceramonies would be religious coercion. And he thinks religious activties should be voluntary. Sounds pretty much the same to me.


    I couldn't care less. Because the Environment really isnt that big a problem as the wacko left tries to pretend.

    Heaven forbid he actually care for the victim. Besides, The place you are getting your talking points hasnt really given any specific details to the cases. Without specific facts and without underlying the reasoning behind the decision it's really impossible to tell someones position on the matter.


    Atleast one side.

    HELLO?! THERE WERE NO ABUSES AT GITMO. Simply repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. Why don't you guys ever back up your information. Those prisoners at Gitmo are getting treated better than I do. This issue isnt even going to be on the radar of the Senate Judiciary committee because it doesn't exist. And BTW Miltiary tribunals are a good thing and his positions will likely HELP him get confirmed.
     
  9. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    roe v wade was wrongly decided by the court...the right to an abortion is not in the constitution.

    the right to due process under american law and under the US constitution for non citizens is not in the constitution.

    the rest are non issues.
     
  10. bock2911
    Offline

    bock2911 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    How is it not being in the consitution automatically mean it must therefore be wrong to allow abortion? I think what they were protecting was an individual's right to choose.

    I really take offense to this one. How can people consistently ignore all scientific data that says there is a global warming problem? Oh yeah, its probably b/c an Official in the White House edited environmental reports so language indicitating there is a problem was white-washed.

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/08/MNGLHD55IJ1.DTL
     

Share This Page