Roberts on key issues

[Gabriella84]

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

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.

 

[bock2911]

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

You mean something like the ICC? No.

 

[freeandfun1]

Wouldn't it be better to try them in some sort of court similiar to what was used after WWII for war criminals?

Those were military tribunals.... International military tribunals, but military tribunals none the less.

 

[bock2911]

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.

 

[dmp]

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

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Atleast one side.

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.

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.

 

[manu1959]

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.

 

[bock2911]

roe v wade was wrongly decided by the court...the right to an abortion is not in the constitution.

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

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

 

[dmp]

I really take offense to this one. How can people consistently ignore all scientific data that says there is a global warming problem?

Uh..it's easy. Scientists are wrong all the time. We can't accurately predict the weather two weeks out - yet 'they' would have us believe they can forcast widespread catastrophe? Ever see the movie 'the day after tomorrow'? Global warming lead to an ice age. Another Ice Age. The biggest hole in the 'Global Warming' BS is, 'if we weren't around to cause the FIRST ice age, what makes people think we are going to have any impact on the NEXT ice age?'

Some scientists would also tell you that men descended from Apes. Be careful what you believe.

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.

Yeah...then they used black helicopters on 'whisper mode' to deliver the reports, right?

 

[dmp]

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.

That's not true. First, all rights are guaranteed by the constitution, or they are not 'rights'...but 'benefits'. They were protecting ONE PERSON's choice, while invalidating the choice of the TWO OTHER People involved - the Baby's choice, and the Father's choice.

 

[bock2911]

Uh..it's easy. Scientists are wrong all the time. We can't accurately predict the weather two weeks out - yet 'they' would have us believe they can forcast widespread catastrophe? Ever see the movie 'the day after tomorrow'? Global warming lead to an ice age. Another Ice Age. The biggest hole in the 'Global Warming' BS is, 'if we weren't around to cause the FIRST ice age, what makes people think we are going to have any impact on the NEXT ice age?'

Some scientists would also tell you that men descended from Apes. Be careful what you believe.



Yeah...then they used black helicopters on 'whisper mode' to deliver the reports, right?

First off, did you even look at the link I provided? It goes to a news article reporting how an official did change the reports, and I have seen in it in other papers also, so yes, they did change the papers. Second, the entire movie 'A Day after tomorrow' is a piece of fiction, completely! It does take some extreme scientific ideas, and goes crazy with it. But most scientists accept the idea that yes, there is global warming. The cause is up to debate. How much it continues in the next century is up to debate. But how can the administration try to hide the fact that it is happening?!? Scientific data SAYS that global temperatures have increased in the past 2 centuries. We should take measures to try to minimize the impact of man on this increase. By ignoring it, we are putting our head in the ground and pretending it isn't there!

And BTW, I am a believer in the theory of evolution.

That's not true. First, all rights are guaranteed by the constitution, or they are not 'rights'...but 'benefits'. They were protecting ONE PERSON's choice, while invalidating the choice of the TWO OTHER People involved - the Baby's choice, and the Father's choice.

Well, abortion is a hard debate, too many unknowns, like when do we define the combination of sperm and egg a human being. Anyway, you guys lost this fight in the '70s. If you get over that loss, I will get over Bush winning the last election.

 

[bock2911]

BTW.. I just found this article from yesterday:

Scientists: Humans cause global warming

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming is caused primarily by humans and "nearly all climate scientists today" agree with that viewpoint, the new head of the National Academy of Sciences -- a climate scientist himself -- said Wednesday.

Ralph Cicerone's views contrasted with Bush administration officials' emphasis on uncertainty about how much carbon dioxide and other industrial gases warm the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and it continues to rise," said Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist who left as chancellor of University of California-Irvine to become academy president this month. "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fuels."

Cicerone, testifying before a Senate Commerce subcommittee on global climate change, cited data from weather stations and ships indicating the surface of the Earth is generally hotter by about seven-tenths of 1 degree Fahrenheit just since the early 1970s.

The administration officials stressed the $5 billion spent yearly on U.S. climate programs, mostly research. David Conover, a principal deputy assistant energy secretary, said President Bush would lead on the issue though "the scientific and technology challenges are considerable."

James Mahoney, assistant commerce secretary for oceans and atmosphere, said, "We know that the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem." But he did not go further than that.

"We see economic growth, addressing the climate change problem and energy security as integrally related," said Daniel Reifsnyder, director of the State Department's Office of Global Change.

Just three senators -- David Vitter, R-Louisiana, Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska -- were at the hearing. All three shared concerns about coastlines disappearing.

Cicerone also bolstered a 2004 Pentagon report that two private consultants prepared on potential global impacts of an abrupt and severe change in the world's climate. When the report was issued, it was met with some skepticism and disbelief -- even by the Pentagon official who commissioned the study.

Among the dire consequences sketched out were surging seas breaking down levees in the Netherlands in 2007, making the Hague "unlivable," and Europe's climate becoming "more like Siberia's" by 2020. They saw possible "mega-droughts" in southern China and northern Europe.

"It was well done," Cicerone said of the report. "I didn't think it was fictional."

Last month, the National Academy of Sciences -- an independent organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on scientific matters -- joined with similar groups from 10 other nations in calling for prompt action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Those nations were Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan and Russia.

Bush said earlier this month he recognizes that human activity contributes to a warmer Earth. But he continues to reject the Kyoto treaty on global warming that all other G-8 industrialized nations signed, because developing nations weren't included in it.

His administration has argued strongly against mandatory climate-related emissions caps, contending that its voluntary program is countering the growth of those emissions, but not actually reducing the tons annually being released into the atmosphere.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/21/global.warming.ap/index.html

 

[OCA]

As far as I see it, this guy is right on on every issue.

Enough of the bullshit, now is the time to ignore Demos and bulldoze right the fuck over them. Get this guy on the court, when Rehnquist retires or takes the dirtnap get somebody equally conservative or even more so on the court. There will never be a more ripe opportunity to overturn the wrong decisions of the court such as Roe v Wade then the next couple years.

Demos lost the election, they have no say in this matter, we should treat them as if they do not exist.

But then again Repubs will probably cave like they always do, they have no balls.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

Why not just allow those countries who catch terrorists deal with the ones they catch - just as we will deal with the ones we catch? Isn't that fair?

Why is it liberals always think everything must be done in an international committee? You know that always leads to inefficiency and conflict. Or are you advocating a world power that the U.S. must submit to? I suppose you also support Ruth Bader Ginsberg types that want international law to supplant our Constitution as well?

IF the war is over and we have some outstanding terrorist leaders left over to deal with, I am all for instituting another Nuremburg-type tribunal to make an international show of cleaning up the dregs. I would not want an ongoing spectacle that places U.S. sovereignty in jeopardy.

 

[bock2911]

I would not want an ongoing spectacle that places U.S. sovereignty in jeopardy.

How does dealing with criminals held at Gitmo, who were captured not in the US and did their crimes NOT in the US, attack our sovereignty? One could argue that we attacked Afghanistan's and Iraqi's sovereignty.

And why must you us the term Liberal like it is a disease? Let me set the records straight, NO LIBERALS I know of what international law to supplant the US constitution. This is a world problem that needs to be dealt with in a global stage.

 

[Gabriella84]

But then again Repubs will probably cave like they always do, they have no balls.

Big talk from small brains. Make sure you include yourself in that group.

 

[archangel]

"Walking Eagle" is just looking for attention...nothing substantial in her response or comments!

 

[archangel]

As far as I see it, this guy is right on on every issue.

Enough of the bullshit, now is the time to ignore Demos and bulldoze right the fuck over them. Get this guy on the court, when Rehnquist retires or takes the dirtnap get somebody equally conservative or even more so on the court. There will never be a more ripe opportunity to overturn the wrong decisions of the court such as Roe v Wade then the next couple years.

Demos lost the election, they have no say in this matter, we should treat them as if they do not exist.

But then again Repubs will probably cave like they always do, they have no balls.

Wtf.....is it acceptable to bury the dead at sea vs dirt nap...vs above ground burial as in "Native American" humm...who cares...the point is get who we need in office to right the wrongs of all the "Walking Eagles"