YEEEEHAAAAAAA. What a bunch of CRAP...

archangel said:
then don't fall into the mantra of condemming someone before all the facts are in! :cool:

Since when is expressing concern about ONE thing about a person condemning them. Archangel, I have stated that I think he should be confirmed. Sheesh.
 
ProudDem said:
Since when is expressing concern about ONE thing about a person condemning them. Archangel, I have stated that I think he should be confirmed. Sheesh.


I am glad you think he should be confirmed...and as Jesus said many many centuries ago at a Roman seaside resort when confronted by a follower who asked..."Rabbi" and what do you say about eating meat on Friday"...Jesus replied: 'It is not that which goes into the body that defiles it...but that which comes out of the mouth"!' Just food for thought! :blues:
 
ProudDem said:
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.

I don't think a privledged background automatically means someone is out of touch with "the real world". Yeah, I have known some people that didn't get it. The people that didn't understand when someone says they are out of money it doesn't always mean they just need to stop at an ATM. Sometimes out of money means out of money. However, these are, in my experience, younger people who truely haven't experienced "the real world".

The best thing about the Constitution is that it applies to everyone equally, no matter how rich or poor they are. Bill Gates has the same right to freedom of speech that a cart pusher at Wal Mart has, no more no less. Listening to what John Roberts says, rather than looking at the way he grew up, I think he is exactly what a Supreme Court justice should be.

I know you said it wasn't a reason he shouldn't be appointed, but I think some of us are filled to the rim with the privledged background talk. We've heard about it concerning President Bush since he was nominated in 2000. Yet Democrats don't seem to mind nominating John Kerry, who wasn't exactly a coal miners son. It's just old, and really no reason to count anything against anybody.


ProudDem said:
Does anyone else think that Roberts's eyes are a little weird?

Not weird, but he does look like he's REALLY awake all the time.
 
Actually, ProudDem seems to be exactly the type of liberal we need more of around here...shes calm, rational, and wants to be treated with the respect shes shown people here so far...I am thrilled to have her here!

I think, however, after reading her posts in this thread...that she is a firm believer in the very common liberal belief that diversity for diversity's sake is something to be admired over talent, experience, qualifications, etc. That somehow because someone is or was once poor they are somehow better able to interpret the Constitution? She states that she wants someone who has experienced this hardship to have this sort of power...and inherent in that belief is that somehow interpretting the Constitution would be done better by someone who had sufferred more. Interpretting the Constitution should not be based upon how hard you had it growing up, what a great understanding of how hard it is to fall upon tough times...if that is why a person wants the job then I fear they are going to be an activist judge...led by their emotions, rather than the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Supreme Court should be made up of intelligent individuals who are qualified for the job and will do it appropriately...their diverse backgrounds, while charming...shouldn't be determining characteristics...their qualifications should be.
 
so poor people can interpret the constituion better.....based on this logic....the less rich senators are better at making law and decissions....take teddy, nancy, barbara, diane and johnny...they are all rich...they make crap decissions.....hey wait she may be onto something
 
When I posted this, I was talking about Howard Dean and the BS that he was spewing.. Not that it didn't turn into a great thread about Robert's.
Now can we get into ripping Dean a new one?? :poke: Ah, never mind carry on, we all know, that howey is a loony. :thup:
 
Stephanie said:
When I posted this, I was talking about Howard Dean and the BS that he was spewing.. Not that it didn't turn into a great thread about Robert's.
Now can we get into ripping Dean a new one?? :poke: Ah, never mind carry on, we all know, that howey is a loony. :thup:

To me, Howard Dean has become that crazy old uncle everyone talks about, but nobody really pays attention to. He rants, he raves, he stirs up the other loons. When the dust settles, everybody shakes their heads and goes about their business.

What a wonderful person to have as the face of a party.
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
To me, Howard Dean has become that crazy old uncle everyone talks about, but nobody really pays attention to. He rants, he raves, he stirs up the other loons. When the dust settles, everybody shakes their heads and goes about their business.

What a wonderful person to have as the face of a party.

I have to agree with Jimmy. If Dean says something, I read it for comedic value, nothing more.
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
To me, Howard Dean has become that crazy old uncle everyone talks about, but nobody really pays attention to. He rants, he raves, he stirs up the other loons. When the dust settles, everybody shakes their heads and goes about their business.

What a wonderful person to have as the face of a party.

I like your analogy, of the crazy old uncle. After I read it, I got to thinking, maybe we should be happy he's the head of thier party. It show's the true Democrats, not the lefty liberal loon's, what has taken over their party..
Dean bad for democrat's... :cuckoo:
Dean good for republican's.. :cheers2:
 
Stephanie said:
I like your analogy, of the crazy old uncle. After I read it, I got to thinking, maybe we should be happy he's the head of thier party. It show's the true Democrats, not the lefty liberal loon's, what has taken over their party..
Dean bad for democrat's... :cuckoo:
Dean good for republican's.. :cheers2:

I'm sure Hillary is glad to have this chump out there looking like an idiot--he can take the heat while she does the sneak. Libs all vote anti-conservative anyway way so party behavior is pretty meaningless to them. Hell, they will even let Ted Kennedy still call himself a democrat. How embarassing can THAT be ?
 
ProudDem,

The bottom line is that there is no reason to demand (or even secretly wish) that a Supreme Court nominee (or President) have humble beginnings if that person demonstrates a caring, compassionate nature and the qualifications and professionalism to do the job to which they have been assigned with dignity and respect.

UNLESS, that is...

You are a proud liberal Democrat who believes that having a panel of Supreme Court Justices who look like a Beneton ad is somehow of equal or greater importance than having a panel of Supreme Court Justices who are intelligent, qualified, professional, and get the job done...regardless of what they look like or whether or not their parents had money.

For the party who claims to judge all people equally, based upon the content of their character and all that...you certainly seem to be intent on defending the notion that someone is inherently better if they were poor as a child...than someone who went to "expensive schools."
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
I don't think a privledged background automatically means someone is out of touch with "the real world". Yeah, I have known some people that didn't get it. The people that didn't understand when someone says they are out of money it doesn't always mean they just need to stop at an ATM. Sometimes out of money means out of money. However, these are, in my experience, younger people who truely haven't experienced "the real world".

The best thing about the Constitution is that it applies to everyone equally, no matter how rich or poor they are. Bill Gates has the same right to freedom of speech that a cart pusher at Wal Mart has, no more no less. Listening to what John Roberts says, rather than looking at the way he grew up, I think he is exactly what a Supreme Court justice should be.

I know you said it wasn't a reason he shouldn't be appointed, but I think some of us are filled to the rim with the privledged background talk. We've heard about it concerning President Bush since he was nominated in 2000. Yet Democrats don't seem to mind nominating John Kerry, who wasn't exactly a coal miners son. It's just old, and really no reason to count anything against anybody.




Not weird, but he does look like he's REALLY awake all the time.

Hi Jimmy.

I agree that not everyone who has had a privileged life is out of touch with the real world. But some people, yes. Now, when I expressed my concern, I was not saying that he WAS out of touch; rather that I worried he may be out of touch. Honestly, neither you nor I can say which one applies. The articles that I read on this topic pointed out that some of the positions he has taken in the past would indicate that at that time he could have been out of touch with reality. He made arguments against women's voting rights and against civil rights. That was the gist of why the authors of these articles were concerned about his ability to relate to those who are far less fortunate than he is. For example, it's pretty rare that someone on death row had a privileged life.

I'm going to search for one of the articles in the Washington Post so I can put it i here. But I have never said he absolutely has no perspective.

Now as for Bush, I think people who don't like him look for reasons to attack him. One of the differences between him and Roberts is that Roberts has worked since he graduated law school. We all know that Bush had worked very little throughout his life before he became Governor. That could be perceived negatively.

I thought your discussion about the Constitution was excellent! Those are great points.

Ah, and thank you for saying what I think of his eyes. They are a beautiful color, but they are so wide open. Someone called me immature for bringing that up. LOL
:)
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
To me, Howard Dean has become that crazy old uncle everyone talks about, but nobody really pays attention to. He rants, he raves, he stirs up the other loons. When the dust settles, everybody shakes their heads and goes about their business.

What a wonderful person to have as the face of a party.

Sometimes Howard Dean can be so articulate, but other times, *sigh*. :(
 
dilloduck said:
I'm sure Hillary is glad to have this chump out there looking like an idiot--he can take the heat while she does the sneak. Libs all vote anti-conservative anyway way so party behavior is pretty meaningless to them. Hell, they will even let Ted Kennedy still call himself a democrat. How embarassing can THAT be ?

Dillo, I am a die-hard dem; however, I cannot stand Hillary. I DO NOT want her as president. Blech! If she were running against John McCain, I would vote republican for the first time in my life. :shocked:
Although I guess if she were running against Frist, I would have to vote for her.

I also cannot stand Biden. I would love to see Russell Feingold run or perhaps Mark Warner (he's my governor).
 
Gem said:
ProudDem,

The bottom line is that there is no reason to demand (or even secretly wish) that a Supreme Court nominee (or President) have humble beginnings if that person demonstrates a caring, compassionate nature and the qualifications and professionalism to do the job to which they have been assigned with dignity and respect.

UNLESS, that is...

You are a proud liberal Democrat who believes that having a panel of Supreme Court Justices who look like a Beneton ad is somehow of equal or greater importance than having a panel of Supreme Court Justices who are intelligent, qualified, professional, and get the job done...regardless of what they look like or whether or not their parents had money.

For the party who claims to judge all people equally, based upon the content of their character and all that...you certainly seem to be intent on defending the notion that someone is inherently better if they were poor as a child...than someone who went to "expensive schools."

First of all, Gem, I appreciate the warm welcome. Thank you.

I don't see how you and anyone else can read from my posts that I believe that someone HAS to have struggled or led an unprivileged life (at some point) to have perspective. I merely expressed concern that he MAY NOT have perspective. And, no, I don't believe that this "perspective" is a requirement to be a Supreme Court Justice. You are right that I "secretly wish" that a person have struggled at one point in their life. In my eyes, those kinds of people are (1) more interesting and (2) have more perspective. This is just my personal opinion. (My "more interesting" comment is not a trait for a Justice, but that when I meet people who have struggled, I personally find them more interesting.)

I read a book called, "Becoming Justice Blackmun" by Linda Greenhouse. It's all about Justice Blackmun's life growing up and then how he got to the Supreme Court. He and Chief Justice Warren Burger grew up in the same poor neighborhood and were best friends (until a case came before the Court that tore them apart). I loved the story it told of Blackmun, and I think his past made him have the great character he had. Does this mean he is a better person than Roberts? Nope.

See my post above. For someone to argue against women's voting rights and civil rights, you have to wonder if he has any idea of what it is like to be in those people's positions. Yeah, I know many men used to think women were not equal, but still--that is disconcerting to me. I will search for that Washington Post article. :)
 
I found one of the articles! Woo Hoo! I'll copy the article and then provide the link.

The Nominee's Sheltered World

By David S. Broder
Post
Sunday, July 24, 2005; B07

So what is there still to be learned about Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court?

We know that he is intellectually well-qualified to contribute to the work of the court. He has been a standout in every classroom, from grade school in Indiana through Harvard Law School. He has clerked for two distinguished jurists, argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and won high praise from fellow lawyers when he was nominated two years ago for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often regarded as the second most important court in the land.

We also know that he is very likely to be confirmed. He was cleared for his current post by voice vote, after only three of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Democrats opposed sending his name to the floor. Sandra Day O'Connor, the justice he would replace, called him a "fabulous" choice. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the senator in whose office the "Gang of 14" moderates negotiated their agreement to avoid a showdown over judicial filibusters, said there's no way that Roberts's record would justify any of the 14 declaring this an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting a filibuster.

Barring some surprise, Roberts is headed for confirmation by a lopsided margin. That speaks well of the president, who bypassed more controversial conservatives and who also denied himself, at least for now, the political benefit of naming the first Hispanic justice or the third woman to the court.

Having argued earlier that Bush was probably eager for a smackdown with Senate Democrats, let me say that I am delighted to have been wrong.

So what can the Judiciary Committee hearings tell us about Judge Roberts? Much that is important about his view of the law and the courts in American society.

Despite his youthful summer jobs in the steel mills at Burns Harbor, Ind., where his dad was an executive, Roberts has led a sheltered life, absorbed in the law. Private Catholic schools, Harvard, appointed jobs in the White House and Justice Department, a million-dollar-a-year corporate practice, married to a fellow lawyer -- all commendable but insulated.

At his earlier confirmation hearing, he rejected any doctrinaire approach to the law. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, he said, "I don't have an overarching, uniform philosophy." But you can search his record in vain for examples of his sensitivity to the impact of the law on people's lives. He clearly reveres the institutions of this democracy -- the federal system, the separation of powers, the Supreme Court itself -- and that is a vitally important recommendation. But it is less clear how he views the role of the courts in securing justice for the citizens of the republic. That is something the senators can usefully probe. The human dimension is something Justice O'Connor provided, as the only member of the court who had served in elective office, as majority leader of the Arizona Senate. That human dimension -- the political judgment -- is something the court needs. As Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said before Bush announced his choice, "It would be useful . . . to have somebody" to replace O'Connor "who's been out in the world and has a more varied background" than that of a career lawyer or jurist.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) publicly cautioned the president not to name "a knee-jerk conservative crusader who will march in lockstep to the tune of partisan pressure groups." Roberts is much better than that.

But it would be comforting to know that Roberts has been "out in the world" enough to know there's more to life than law books.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201628.html
 
ProudDem said:
I found one of the articles! Woo Hoo! I'll copy the article and then provide the link.

The Nominee's Sheltered World

By David S. Broder
Post
Sunday, July 24, 2005; B07

So what is there still to be learned about Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court?

We know that he is intellectually well-qualified to contribute to the work of the court. He has been a standout in every classroom, from grade school in Indiana through Harvard Law School. He has clerked for two distinguished jurists, argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and won high praise from fellow lawyers when he was nominated two years ago for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, often regarded as the second most important court in the land.

We also know that he is very likely to be confirmed. He was cleared for his current post by voice vote, after only three of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Democrats opposed sending his name to the floor. Sandra Day O'Connor, the justice he would replace, called him a "fabulous" choice. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the senator in whose office the "Gang of 14" moderates negotiated their agreement to avoid a showdown over judicial filibusters, said there's no way that Roberts's record would justify any of the 14 declaring this an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting a filibuster.

Barring some surprise, Roberts is headed for confirmation by a lopsided margin. That speaks well of the president, who bypassed more controversial conservatives and who also denied himself, at least for now, the political benefit of naming the first Hispanic justice or the third woman to the court.

Having argued earlier that Bush was probably eager for a smackdown with Senate Democrats, let me say that I am delighted to have been wrong.

So what can the Judiciary Committee hearings tell us about Judge Roberts? Much that is important about his view of the law and the courts in American society.

Despite his youthful summer jobs in the steel mills at Burns Harbor, Ind., where his dad was an executive, Roberts has led a sheltered life, absorbed in the law. Private Catholic schools, Harvard, appointed jobs in the White House and Justice Department, a million-dollar-a-year corporate practice, married to a fellow lawyer -- all commendable but insulated.

At his earlier confirmation hearing, he rejected any doctrinaire approach to the law. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, he said, "I don't have an overarching, uniform philosophy." But you can search his record in vain for examples of his sensitivity to the impact of the law on people's lives. He clearly reveres the institutions of this democracy -- the federal system, the separation of powers, the Supreme Court itself -- and that is a vitally important recommendation. But it is less clear how he views the role of the courts in securing justice for the citizens of the republic. That is something the senators can usefully probe. The human dimension is something Justice O'Connor provided, as the only member of the court who had served in elective office, as majority leader of the Arizona Senate. That human dimension -- the political judgment -- is something the court needs. As Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said before Bush announced his choice, "It would be useful . . . to have somebody" to replace O'Connor "who's been out in the world and has a more varied background" than that of a career lawyer or jurist.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) publicly cautioned the president not to name "a knee-jerk conservative crusader who will march in lockstep to the tune of partisan pressure groups." Roberts is much better than that.

But it would be comforting to know that Roberts has been "out in the world" enough to know there's more to life than law books.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201628.html

I read this awhile ago, I still fail to understand what the point is. If one hasn't been born into less than well-to-do or with better than average intelligence, one doesn't run into challenges? Hardly. Too many have been born into riches and with high IQ but never develop the self discipline Judge Roberts has excercised throughout his so far dissected life.
 
ProudDem said:
First of all, Gem, I appreciate the warm welcome. Thank you.

I don't see how you and anyone else can read from my posts that I believe that someone HAS to have struggled or led an unprivileged life (at some point) to have perspective. I merely expressed concern that he MAY NOT have perspective. And, no, I don't believe that this "perspective" is a requirement to be a Supreme Court Justice. You are right that I "secretly wish" that a person have struggled at one point in their life. In my eyes, those kinds of people are (1) more interesting and (2) have more perspective. This is just my personal opinion. (My "more interesting" comment is not a trait for a Justice, but that when I meet people who have struggled, I personally find them more interesting.)

I read a book called, "Becoming Justice Blackmun" by Linda Greenhouse. It's all about Justice Blackmun's life growing up and then how he got to the Supreme Court. He and Chief Justice Warren Burger grew up in the same poor neighborhood and were best friends (until a case came before the Court that tore them apart). I loved the story it told of Blackmun, and I think his past made him have the great character he had. Does this mean he is a better person than Roberts? Nope.

See my post above. For someone to argue against women's voting rights and civil rights, you have to wonder if he has any idea of what it is like to be in those people's positions. Yeah, I know many men used to think women were not equal, but still--that is disconcerting to me. I will search for that Washington Post article. :)

Using this logic, no man should ever decide a case that pertains to womens rights, no white should ever decide on a case pertaining blacks. Who has all the requirements to be selected for this job in your opinion?
 
ProudDem said:
Michael Moore and Martin Sheen have not been nominated for a lifetime position on a federal court.

This has WHAT to do with whether or not you're carrying two sets of rules -- one for the right and one for the left?

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.

If you're going to take your analysis that far, then NO ONE is qualified for the position. Whatever any of us are a product of, it is exclusive of all other environments. Being a product of a humble upbringing in and of itself can bias perspective.

Education is supposed to overcome that. So far, I have not seen a lack of intelligence displayed by Roberts. Rather, the opposite in dealing with knobs like Schumer.
 
You know what, everybody? No one is really reading what I have said in this thread. I think Roberts should be confirmed. I think he is brilliant. However, no candidate is perfect, and my concern is that he does not have perspective on some types of issues. That's it. Why you all are hounding me about this ONE concern is beyond me. You're all making it seem as though I think he cannot be a good justice because of this. Again, this is merely a concern. Okay?

And whoever said that what I said meant that no male judge should be able to decide a case on women's rights issues has some serious reading comprehension problems. What I was saying was that part of my basis for having the concern about "perspective" was based upon his past discussions on women's voting rights and civil rights. He is NOT a woman. He's arguing against women's voting rights and his voting rights would not be in jeopardy. Get it?

This has WHAT to do with whether or not you're carrying two sets of rules -- one for the right and one for the left?

My concerns addressed in this thread was related solely to JUDGES who decide cases. Neither of those two men are being nominated to be judges. That was what I meant. Sheesh.
 

Forum List

Back
Top