YEEEEHAAAAAAA. What a bunch of CRAP...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Sep 15, 2005.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    Dean: The Verdict on John Roberts
    Governor Dean wrote the following op-ed for national distribution:

    John Roberts is a decent family man and a bright, articulate, thoughtful judge. He has a quality absent in previous right wing candidates like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, namely a judicial temperament that makes litigants feel that they have been respectfully heard whether they are on the winning or losing side of a verdict.

    But John Roberts is the wrong man for the job. Despite the fact that the White House has withheld key documents either out of incompetence or a fear that those documents might prove embarrassing, we have learned enough from the files on Roberts at the Reagan Library to make it clear that he should be rejected.

    This conclusion has only been solidified by Roberts' testimony during this week's hearings. He has been a polished performer, but in failing to present clear answers to straightforward questions, Roberts missed a crucial opportunity to answer legitimate concerns about his record and show compassion for those who have been excluded from the American Dream. The consistent mark of Roberts' career is a lack of commitment to making the Constitution's promise of equal protection a reality for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable in our society.

    He has opposed laws protecting the rights of girls and young women to have the same opportunities in sports as boys and young men. He has argued that politicians, not individual women themselves, ought to control women's reproductive health care. He has opposed various remedies for the racial injustices which have occurred in America since slavery and which persist today. He has consistently joined the radical right in seeking to weaken voting rights protections, in essence attacking the rights of black and Hispanic voters to cast their ballot without paying poll taxes or being subjected to intimidation or gerrymandering. He fought against protecting all Americans from workplace discrimination. Most worrisome, he refused to answer questions on his limited view of the right to personal privacy that most Americans take for granted.

    Over the last half century, we have made great progress in promoting equal opportunity for all Americans, but there is still much work to be done. Hurricane Katrina was more than the most catastrophic natural disaster in American history. Those who have in so many ways been denied the opportunity for full participation in our society once again suffered disproportionately in this tragedy -- seniors, African-Americans and those burdened by poverty.

    Now is not the time for a Chief Justice who is bent on turning back the progress we have made in moving America forward.

    Judge Roberts is said to love the law, but loving the law without loving the American people enough to protect their individual rights and freedoms will make our American community weaker. And the exercise of the law without compassion -- something that Judge Roberts and so many on the far right have consistently been guilty of -- undermines the grace and wisdom of the founders whose sense of balance and fairness made this country great.

    In the past few weeks we have seen what happens when politics and indifference supercede compassion and organization. The enduring lesson of Hurricane Katrina is that there still are too many Americans who are disproportionately vulnerable. Despite the fact that they worked hard and played by the rules, their luck ran out. Americans are a compassionate, fair-minded people. Our nation is great and strong because of that compassion, not just because we have a strong military. We also have strong moral values which include an innate sense of justice often absent in many other parts of the world.

    Our Government today shrinks from compassion. In doing so they have first diminished America in the eyes of the rest of the world, and now they have diminished America in the eyes of our own people. This is a time for justice tempered with mercy and understanding. There is no evidence of either in Judge Roberts's career. The President should be denied this confirmation.

    This man is such a liar. He make's my skin crawl....(shiversssss) :cuckoo:
     
  2. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Stephanie, I do think that Roberts should be confirmed. What bothers me about him is that he has lived a very privileged life and thus has a lack of perspective of those who have not been privileged. For example, Justice Blackmun came from a very poor family. Thus, he understand what it was like to be underprivileged. The same with Warren Burger and Clarence Thomas (they came from poor families). Roberts has grown up with money, gone to the best schools, gotten fantastic jobs, etc. He clearly is brilliant, but he has never struggled, which bothers me.

    Does anyone else think that Roberts's eyes are a little weird?
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    The " he has never been there" excuse is so lame I can't handle it anymore.
     
  4. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Why is it lame? BTW, I didn't say it was a reason to NOT confirm him--just that it reduced his ability to be able to have perspective on some of the types of people who will come before him.
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    SO do you apply the same standard to the Hollyweird elite who wouldn't know reality if it knocked down their doors? Or are Michael Moore and Martin Sheen "heroes of the cause"?

    I personally don't see where class is a contributing factor to interpreting the US Constitution.
     
  6. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Michael Moore and Martin Sheen have not been nominated for a lifetime position on a federal court.

    I understand what you're saying about not seeing a connection, but I respectfully disagree. Our life experiences have an impact on how we decide things. You have to interpret the Constitution based upon a set of facts. For example, the eminent domain case that came before the Supreme Court--I wonder just how many of those justices who supported the taking of private propery had ever experienced any hardship. I know that Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor have not had privileged lives, and they voted against it. I don't know about Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy, etc. I may have to research their past to test my theory.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Privilege. Yes. People who aren't poor aren't poor because someone ELSE granted them the privilege. Economic status is granted from on high by an unseen hand.

    Anyway. So all justices must be poor to be fair? How stupid.
     
  8. kurtsprincess
    Offline

    kurtsprincess Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    683
    Thanks Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    in my hammock
    Ratings:
    +112
    While I believe life experience impacts one's perspective, I also believe that I would be able to perceive what is wrong and what is right, with respect to the Constitution, especially if I had spent my entire adult life studying that discipline, regardless of whether I were poor or priviledged.

    Being poor does not give one more "compassion" for others, any more than being priviledged somehow mutes "compassion". Being underpriviledged or priviledged should not be a requirement for a Supreme Court Judge.

    I want a Chief Justice who will be able to suspend their ideologies and make rulings with regard to the Constitution and what is in the best interests of the majority in the long term.
     
  9. ProudDem
    Online

    ProudDem Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Kurtsprincess, those are very valid points, and I appreciate that you disagreed with me without being disagreeable.

    Rightwing avenger, it's okay to say that you disagree with me, but to call my argument "stupid" shows you have nothing intelligent to say in response to my thoughts. BTW, your reading comprehension isn't very good. I said that I believe that having had tough experiences give people perspective. I never said you had to be poor to be fair. You're dismissed.
     
  10. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    ProudDem,

    You do not have to be poor to have compassion or to understand another person's perspective. You do not have to be black, a woman, gay, or from a broken home to have struggled in your life, to have overcome difficulties, to have valuable life experiences, to have a perspective that can be helpful in making fair rulings.

    I am far more interested in whether or not Roberts will do the job to which he is "applying," without bowing to popular pressures from either side of the political spectrum rather than whether or not his parents were wealthy or not.

    I disagree with the notion that diversity simply for diversity's sake is a wonderful thing we should be striving for at all times. We should be striving for diversity out of the competant, valid choices we have. We shouldn't be turning down intelligent, respected, well-experienced judges because they don't fit a quota.
     

Share This Page