hylandrdet
Member
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...0,0,7544985.story?coll=ny-homepage-bigpix2005
I rarely have a chance to be serious. With all of this Mickey Mouse BS about myself lying about something, I usually would retaliate with some form of silly antics .
But this is no laughing matter; a Supreme Court appointment is a very important duty. Therefore, for this one night, I'll take off the clown's hat and give you my opinion on John G. Roberts.
What can I say? He has balance. He has tried cases in virtually every angle.
He has spoken out against Roe v. Wade, yet defended welfare. However, Roberts did make it absolutely clear that welfare cases should be handled on a case by case basis, and that welfare should be for those who NEED it, not want it. He also made it clear that legalized abortion is here to stay.
I believe in the idea of providing a government financial safety net for poor single pregnant women, thus encouraging them to get on welfare and keep their babies, versus avoiding welfare, as well as their moral responsibilities, by having an abortion. His legal actions, concerning these two issues, fits right into my philosophy.
He is definitely a pro-stater. I like this quality because I personally don't like the idea of California, Texas or New York doing things that brings unecessary federal legislation to Tennessee. If the problem is there, let it stay there, and let it be handled there; but don't bring that crap here.
Roberts has battled for both the conservatives and liberals.
"My practice has not been ideological in any sense," he (Roberts) said. "My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative across the board. I have argued in favor of environmental restrictions and against takings claims. I've argued in favor of affirmative action. I've argued in favor of prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment. I've argued in favor of antitrust enforcement.
"At the same time, I've represented defendants charged with antitrust cases. I've argued cases against affirmative action. And what I've been able to do in each of those cases is set aside any personal views and discharge the professional obligation of an advocate."
But the one thing that impressed me the most is how he is so respected by the Reagan, Clinton and Bush, Sr. administrations, whose members wrote letters of endorsements to GW.
So, It is with great enthusiasm, as a Democrat and as a proud American, That I support John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. He will be hard, but fair; as far as I'm concerned, that qualifies as good enough for me.
I rarely have a chance to be serious. With all of this Mickey Mouse BS about myself lying about something, I usually would retaliate with some form of silly antics .
But this is no laughing matter; a Supreme Court appointment is a very important duty. Therefore, for this one night, I'll take off the clown's hat and give you my opinion on John G. Roberts.
What can I say? He has balance. He has tried cases in virtually every angle.
He has spoken out against Roe v. Wade, yet defended welfare. However, Roberts did make it absolutely clear that welfare cases should be handled on a case by case basis, and that welfare should be for those who NEED it, not want it. He also made it clear that legalized abortion is here to stay.
I believe in the idea of providing a government financial safety net for poor single pregnant women, thus encouraging them to get on welfare and keep their babies, versus avoiding welfare, as well as their moral responsibilities, by having an abortion. His legal actions, concerning these two issues, fits right into my philosophy.
He is definitely a pro-stater. I like this quality because I personally don't like the idea of California, Texas or New York doing things that brings unecessary federal legislation to Tennessee. If the problem is there, let it stay there, and let it be handled there; but don't bring that crap here.
Roberts has battled for both the conservatives and liberals.
"My practice has not been ideological in any sense," he (Roberts) said. "My clients and their positions are liberal and conservative across the board. I have argued in favor of environmental restrictions and against takings claims. I've argued in favor of affirmative action. I've argued in favor of prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment. I've argued in favor of antitrust enforcement.
"At the same time, I've represented defendants charged with antitrust cases. I've argued cases against affirmative action. And what I've been able to do in each of those cases is set aside any personal views and discharge the professional obligation of an advocate."
But the one thing that impressed me the most is how he is so respected by the Reagan, Clinton and Bush, Sr. administrations, whose members wrote letters of endorsements to GW.
So, It is with great enthusiasm, as a Democrat and as a proud American, That I support John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. He will be hard, but fair; as far as I'm concerned, that qualifies as good enough for me.
