Talk of the Town

By Kevin

July 19, 2005 08:20 PM | Link to this

Get ready to hear the term “legislate from the bench” no fewer than 10,000 times over the next months as neo-cons fire up their engines. They’re in for one hell of a fight.

By Randy

July 19, 2005 09:12 PM | Link to this

I like him, go for it.

By Michael

July 19, 2005 10:01 PM | Link to this

Major disapointment. Bush had a chance to try and bring the country together by nominating a moderate. Instead he pandered to the radical right. Once again this President has failed us.

By Ken Pruitt

July 19, 2005 10:19 PM | Link to this

Judge Roberts seems to be an incredible person and worthy of the Court!

By Allen

July 19, 2005 10:26 PM | Link to this

Dude, do you even know what a neo-con is? Apparently not.

By Joseph

July 19, 2005 11:09 PM | Link to this

Let the voice of ALL the people be heard through their elected representatives in Washington, D.C. Let us have a “yea” or “nay” vote from these representatives on the President’s nomination for the Supreme Court. This is the way it has always been done. There is really nothing more to be said on the matter.

By David

July 19, 2005 11:28 PM | Link to this

Dark day for America if this enviromental thug enabler is put on the court.

By kim

July 20, 2005 12:18 AM | Link to this

He’s cute. Cute n conservative. :)

By Don

July 20, 2005 06:03 AM | Link to this

It really doesnt matter. Right leaning Supreme Court, Left leaning court? The poor and disadvantaged(Everyone not rich) will take the brunt of these appointments. Its funny how so many Americans really feel their voice is being heard and represented. Whether your views are conservative or liberal the system is for the rich. These guys arent serving their country, “their serving it up”. The rest of us get caught up on race, religion, values and ethics. Randy Weaver or Rodney King no cash, no privilege, no justice.

By Kendall Loper

July 20, 2005 06:39 AM | Link to this

Give an impartial review Give an up or down vote Whatever the vote, support the decision

By viktor

July 20, 2005 07:01 AM | Link to this

He’s got to be good…all the liberals are whining about how bad he is.

By gttim

July 20, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this

If you like a judge who is against a woman controlling her own reproductive system, who is against any type of environmental regulation, who is against individuals being allowed to have their day in court against corporations, and who will further reduce the rights of the individual and increase the rights of the super wealthy and large corporations, you are going to love this guy. Most religious fundmentalists do not realize they are being used by the wealthy to increase the power and wealth of a few. It does not matter what the Supreme Court rules, wealthy women will still be able to get abortions. The poor will not. During the battle the corporations are robbing the American people blind.

By Debbie

July 20, 2005 07:45 AM | Link to this

The Senate Republicans voted to confirm two liberal choices Clinton made to the Supreme Court because it was Clinton’s choice to make. Ruth Bader Ginsberg even choice not to answer questions about her ideology on issues. The Senate Democrats and Republicans did not pursue the matter and confirmed her. The same process and rules should be in place. I hope the Senate Democrats are not hypocrites just because Roberts is conservative.

By Charles

July 20, 2005 07:49 AM | Link to this

I think this is a “smart” choice by GWB. I really hope that the republican members of the Judiciary Committee won’t be awe inspired by his apparent “absolute intelligence” you hear from the conservatives in the MSM. He did not really upset the liberals (they have nothing to really get upset on) nor are the conservatives upset. And before we get too far into an abortion debate (hopefully not), understand that the guy has acknowledged abortion as “settled law” and he’s stated nothin in his personal views would cause him to go against that precedent.

By yesiamworried

July 20, 2005 07:52 AM | Link to this

I am disappointed (and actually a little surprised) that he appointed a white male. I know that sounds incredibly politcally correct — from someone who usually isn’t. I think he looked for someone who doesn’t have much of a court bench record as a judge.

I also question the timing — I think this appointment was made to take the heat off Rowe.

By Fisher

July 20, 2005 07:55 AM | Link to this

Yep, if the democracks diss him then he MUST be good for America! He does seem to be squeaky clean, and I suspect he will soon be elevated to Chief Justice!

Listen to all the leftwing hacks now turn their attention to this, leaving poor Karl Rove and the Wilsons to fend for themselves!…lol…

By Max

July 20, 2005 08:05 AM | Link to this

Now, only one woman and one black on the court. All the rest are white men. This tells us a lot about Bush.

By Linda Weglewski

July 20, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

Just what we need - another white male.

By Jim Houston

July 20, 2005 08:06 AM | Link to this

President Bush has done it again. He has the true concern of this nation as his primary focus. Judge Roberts will make a great Supreme Court Justice. I am sure Judge Roberts will interpret the Constitution and not try to rewrite it. Our prayers are with him and his family during this grueling time of confirmation.

By Paul Hartwig

July 20, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

Just another comservative extremist who will try to force his religious and moral values on the country and remove our civil liberties. What else would you expect from Bush? Remember the Patriot Act?

By Albert Bolet

July 20, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

It seems based on the tone of the articles in your newspaper that it is a crime to be a conservative in this country. Conservatives stand for hard work, family values, freedom to practice and express your religious beliefs and keeping the government out of our pockets. If this is criminal conduct, I am looking forward to the thought police to knock on my door and lock me up tomorrow…

By Jeff

July 20, 2005 08:20 AM | Link to this

Hey Don, What do you think the court rules on? Did the court not rule on Roe V. Wade? Who took the brunt on that decision? How about think before you speak. Don’t blindly follow people like Mckinney, Sharpton, or Jackson.

By Lukas

July 20, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

I agree with Don. Justice and goverment are currently for sale in our society to the highest bidder. The politions only care about two groups, the large and organized activists/special intrests and people with alot of cash.

By BigDaddy

July 20, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

It’s nice to see that the left is living up their message of tolerance by not rushing to judgement on Justice-to-be Roberts. Since he was just nominated, we hardly know anything about him yet. And really, he’s a shoo-in for confirmation anyway, as the majority of Americans have elected Republicans who are just fulfilling their roles in regards to the judiciary.

By Tam

July 20, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

I think “Kim” post reveals exactly what’s wrong with the current people in power in this country (aka the Bushies): “He’s cute,” she says, this about a person who could make LAWS! GOD HELP US!!!!!!!!

By Charles

July 20, 2005 08:41 AM | Link to this

Nah, I don’t think Bush did this for the Rove. Besides, presenting round-the-clock information about the Rove affair won’t get Rove indicted. Let it run its course. I think the Rove thing may come up again because I honestly don’t think there will be this huge battle over this nominee. C’mon guys..the guy is conservative but I don’t see anything extraordinarily conservative about the candidate. You personally may not agree with his views and decisions—but you have to admit he’s pretty solid. If Ginsburg got through, so should this guy.

By Harry

July 20, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Bush promised no litmus test. The only requirements are that the nominee be a rightwing conservative, corporate lawyer, a white male and most important a devout Catholic! Separation of church and state has almost become a thing of the past. The Republicans are pushing their religious agenda down our throats with their all Catholic Supreme Court. The Republicans fear and hate women; they know they must be controlled. Their goal is to put women in their place, nurturing the next generation of obedient, pious little robots.

By Tim

July 20, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

Tam, you’re right - God help us because people like you think that Supreme Court judges make laws.

By Laura

July 20, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

No surprise here - Bush just wants to add yet another Christian white guy to the band. Will America wake up too late to this dangerous bigoted agenda?

…never forget that war-time TRAITORS Karl Rove and Scooter Libby remain free, and continue to poison our collective well.

By Al

July 20, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

Tam - last time I checked, the Supreme Court didn’t make laws. I believe that would fall to the Legislative Branch. And Max, just another of Bush’s white males?? How do you explain Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Miguel Estrada……..????? Not a lot of pale male faces there huh? Amazing how everyone becomes a “right wing extremist” when nominated by a Republican.

By Adam

July 20, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

I’m with Debbie. When the democrats win an election, they appoint liberal justices to the bench. This time…the democrats DIDN’T WIN. THE REPUBLICANS WON. It all comes with the glory of winning. I say announce whoever you wish Bush…you the man!

By Saul Olvera-Rubio

July 20, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

Remember, this is just a nomination. Hopefully we can look beyond politics and look at the true aspect of what it is to be a judge - neither a leftist or a rightist. The courts have used the symbol of the balance scales. We as a people need to press for judge who is a just and balanced judge - respected by both political parties - has is cultured - and is open to understanding both sides of the story. We really need to move on from parties vs parties…

By Julian

July 20, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

This country is so polarized into left versus right, that no matter what, no matter who, no matter when, liberal Dems instantly launch a fear and smear campaign and create lie after lie. If you don’t like our system of government, do what Johnny Depp did - move to France.

By Norman M.

July 20, 2005 11:13 AM | Link to this

Robets is probably a fair person and will consider all sides of a case. Its just that we need a person more in the mold of Sandra Day O’conner. She was many times the voice of reason and moderation on the court.

By magie krebs

July 20, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Being conservative and a Roman Catholic to boot, there is no way that he’ll try to keep legalized abortion ! Sorryfor women again …..

By DonH

July 20, 2005 11:39 AM | Link to this

The comments that “this will take the heat off Rove” and “a white male was appointed” are so near sighted. Can’t you just evaluate Mr. Roberts on his record and his personal worth. I’m trying my best not use the “L” word on the people who make these kinds of statements.

By roy

July 20, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Many people, like Tam previously, do not understand that the courts do not “make laws.” God help us indeed! The purpose of the court is to interpret the laws as Congress writes them - no more. Judges should be evaluated on their ability to stick to the Constitution. Abrotion will never be overturned in this country, so the religious right should drop it. What we should be worried about is the recent Kelo v. New London decision that could affect anyone, not just middle-class white teenage girls who had unprotected sex. What does he think about private property rights?

By scott carter

July 20, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

If Mr. Roberts is in favor of pressing the will of the religious zealots on the American people, then he should be defeated. Roe V Wade gave women the right to decide what they want to do with their bodies. Women can decide if they want to go it alone or terminate and prevent a welfare case. If the religious zealots want to be financially responsible for the kid, let them sign on the dotted line. Separation of Church and State means that the Church and it’s representatives do not impose their views on others. America needs a Judge who will uphold the rules and not impose their views. As for Affirmative action, it’s time has passed and it is time for people to earn things on their own merits and not on their skin merits.

By scott carter

July 20, 2005 12:13 PM | Link to this

Just Remember America.Everyone wrote off the Gore/Lieberman Ticket for the Religious Ticket. Gore would have saved the environment form being over delveloped and might have nominated a woman who would save Roe V Wade. Lieberman would have done to Iraq and Iran and the Gaza Strip what FDR did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima. No ground troops,no Americans dying every day, just one big blast and no more muslim terrorists. Instead, Bush wants to give Palestinian Terrorists their own state. Mr. President-why not give them Texas and YOU live next to them? Is that how you treat our only TRUE allies in the Mid East? Al and Joe-wanna give it another go?

By Ben

July 20, 2005 12:17 PM | Link to this

Unless Bush nominates a racial minority woman to the bench with a left-wing agenda, the liberals and left-wing Democrats will not stop whining with no offer of an alternative. Attention, liberals: if you disapprove of a white male on the bench, then YOU ARE THE RACIST AND/OR SEXIST! And until you have an alternative proposal to the “radical religous right wing agenda” get used to losing elections.

By Zac

July 20, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Tam you are what is wrong, not Kim… a supreme court justice doesn’t make laws… he/she intreprets them… congress is the only body of government that makes new laws.

By Chris

July 20, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

Looks like we’re in for another summer of hysterics from left- and right- wing extremists… great! As I read it, Roberts opposed the original Roe vs. Wade decision, but respects precedent too.

As courts seem to have become the primary instruments of social policy in the US, the thought of another religious conservative is not thrilling, but then remember it was the left-leaning members of the court that scr_wed the public over with the Eminent Domain ruling.

Seriously, does anyone have any real ideas about how to deal with this country’s opportunities for improvement, or decide what these issues really are, or are we just going to go on listening to political dogmatics rant about how stupid each other are, ‘cos we already have the AJC Opinion page for that.

By BigDaddy

July 20, 2005 12:21 PM | Link to this

Harry, who’s the extremist?

By John

July 20, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

There is no economic justice in American and Judge Roberts will give Corporations more power to take money away from the poor. Democrats need to wake up and support economic justice. To each according to his needs….

By Danny

July 20, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

I believe that we need to move into the 21st century on how we appoint someone to such a position of power. They will be able to control our society’s growth for many years this man may be around for 25 to 30 years, so think about it people do we want our children to be ruled by the same people when they are grown that we have now controlling our society right now? We need someone that will allow us to become even stronger or we will keep the same narrow minded ideas that have landed our country into the turmoil that we are in right now. Not someone that has the same 19th & 20th century’s ideas of behavior and beliefs, we need to grow as a nation. Fear now rules our world & our personal beliefs on any matter, be it abortion, environmental or religion. We need to move forward not back to the dark ages, having an equal number of men and women appointed to the high court so there is a voice for everyone, because believe or not women make up half if not more then half of the worlds population. I see our leaders taking us back to when the only opinion or option we had is a man’s, a rich powerful men that will keep their thumbs on our foreheads pushing us back into the role in life that they and only they believe we should be in!

By viktor

July 20, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Wow, the leftists Borkers are out in force already. Oh woe is the middle class, pity the poor, not to mention the women. How pathetic can you get. Why don’t you all learn about the man for yourselves and quit parroting the extremist liberal websites.

By J Mallory

July 20, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

I say let’s confirm this man and look forward to an overturn of Roe v. Wade. That overturn will send the women of America into fits and the Republicans will suffer many years for it. We need something to be the catalyst for exposing the Republicans for what they are: two-faced, money grubbing, heartless cads.

By John

July 20, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

People should be concerned as to whether the person appointed to positions are the most qualified for the position. Not what the persons sexuality, color, or political affiliation is. The sooner we, the people, understand this, the better we will all be.

By Gary

July 20, 2005 01:26 PM | Link to this

It is funny how so many people think that just because Justice O’Connor was a female justice that we have to appoint a female justice to replace her. People say that Bush should nominate a woman so that there will be a voice for everyone. Well if you want a voice for everyone then elect them. Sumpreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and he should always choose someone to uphold the constitution not so all people will have an equal voice. That is why we have a legislative branch of government, they are elected and make the laws, the Sumpreme Court upholds the laws. That is American Government 101.

By JB

July 20, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Still not enough info on him to say he will be good or bad for the court yet. I want to hear him answer questions on important issues, particularly abortion. However, I am disappointed that Bush did not replace the first ever female Justice with another female. 50% of Americans are women, seems like 2/9 isn’t too much to ask for as far as representation. The only other acceptable path would have been a minority appointment, like a Hispanic-American. But instead he chose another white male. Being one myself, I felt we were more than adequately represented as it was. This pretty much cements Bush’s legacy as a complete panderer to the interests who paid for his candidacy, white male religious conservatives.

By Dan

July 20, 2005 01:41 PM | Link to this

Just a couple of points for those screaming about rights and making laws etc. The supreme courts primary function is to ensure that any law passed by the legislative branch is within the bounds of that legislative bodies authority as outlined in the constitution. But if/when they broaden the meaning of the constitutions (which in most cases is very broad and malleable) is when the rulings become defacto law. Without the benefit of a democratic legislative process. The overturning of Roe Wade would not make abortion illegal, rather it would restore the rulings regarding abortion to the state level. If you read Roberts dissention it is clearly not ideological, but more about the state vs federal authority and the proper place of the federal court.
A judge has far too much power to allow someone who is far right or left, therefore someone who is a strict constitutionalist would continue straight down the center and let the pols fight it out on either wing

By BigDaddy

July 20, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

John, could you please expand on your comment. Just how would a Justice Roberts “give Corporations more power to take money away from the poor.” The only way I see that as being a possibility would be if he were to write a brief in favor of retaining the Kelo v. New London case. Otherwise, precisely how do corporations “take” money from the poor? Last I checked, only elected officials had the power to levee taxes that force people from their hard-earned money. Businesses do not have that power. Are we all missing something from your statement, or are you just advocating socialism or communism?

By Harry

July 20, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

The Supreme Court determines if the laws passed by the legislature are legal and constitutional. We are supposed to have three separate branches of government. This was designed to give balance of power and equal justice under the law for all people. But when all three branches are controlled by one group of totalitarians, bent on changing the country and the world for the next century, we have a constitutional crisis. Republicans seem to forget; at best you have a one percent majority. Is it winner take all? Tyranny of the majority? Are you so emboldened by your new found power that you think we are immune from another civil war? Think again!

By WhatIsFreedom

July 20, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

I was pleasantly surprised by President Bush’s pick for Supreme Court justice. Contrary to all the banter about selecting a moderate who will “maintain the balance” of the court, I believe we need an appointment to that court that will bring its composition toward that which more approximately represents the values of our nation. The court as it comprised now is too liberal. All this nonsense about “maintaining balance” is a desperate attempt by the left to hold on to their quickly evaporating power.

To characterize Bush’s selection as either divisive or controversial is an assessment that is both feeble and counter-productive. Unfortunately it is what one might come to expect from the Left: no new ideas; no productive contributions; only negative attacks and wasteful delays to the political process. Bush is merely exercising his powers as defined in the Constitution. The appointment is his choice to make. It is the place of the Senate to either confirm or reject the appointment.

By Stay At Home Mom

July 20, 2005 02:18 PM | Link to this

Thank God for this man and Bush! Finally maybe we can clean our country of the gays!

By Jasmine Thomas

July 20, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

What is so wrong with women? To Bush: Humor us females and liberals and pick Judge Ephraim from TV, she would most likely be a better pick anyway.

By Jasmine Thomas

July 20, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

This is to What is Freedom: The liberals in the Supreme Court now are only helping out the people. A few years from now when all the liberals have left, you will be asking that same question, “What is freedom?, because America sure ain’t it!”

By JB

July 20, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Okay, the comments by WhatisFreedom and StayathomeMom explains why this country is in deep trouble. The court should be balanced because the country is balanced. You are misreading having a republican president and congress as if that meant the country was 70-90% in favor of republican policies. In 2000, Bush did not win the popular vote and in 2004 won by just over 50%. So saying the court doesn’t need to be balanced is ridiculous. The country is 50-50, so the supreme court should be as balanced as possible. As for “clean our country of the gays”, that explains to me why you are a Stay at home mom, too stupid and biggoted to be let out into the workforce. Being gay is not now, nor will it ever be illegal, regardless of how many conservatives there are on the supreme court. Why don’t you go live in Saudi Arabia, they share your views, and you’d fit right in as a stay at home mom, since you wouldn’t be allowed out anyway.

By Dan

July 20, 2005 03:33 PM | Link to this

Harry You are correct about the balance of power but you are sorely mistaken regarding what party weilds their power most dangerously. What could be more totalitarian than the Kelo case. Thank goodness most of the people in this country understand that.

By David Brown

July 20, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

My initial reaction is disappointment. A quick glance at Mr. Roberts’ civil rights positions causes me much concern. Why is it so difficult to find someone both pro-life and pro-civil rights?

By BigDaddy

July 20, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

Harry, calm down, it sounds like you’re about to go into convulsions. Need you be reminded that the left’s darling, Slick Willie Clinton, was elected with a plurality both terms - less than a majority - yet he appointed two Justices despite a Republican-controlled House. (Yes, I realize the House has nothing to do with the process, but the point is the House represents the people of the United States in Washington, and more Congressional Representatives were, and are, Republicans).

It’s not a constitutional crisis if a majority of people in this country elect representatives that they believe will pursue a conservative agenda. There is no “tyranny of the majority” going on here. Legislators are elected by people based on the number of people that agree with their respective positions on a host of issues. If you don’t like the results of the most recent elections, then work within your party to offer some attractive and reasonable alternatives that with which you feel a majority of Americans will agree.

The “crisis” of which you speak is actually within the Democratic Party, which has become increasingly shrill, anti-capitalist, and generally bereft of all ideas. The only thing Democrats have offered of late is a reflexive “NO” to any new ideas offered up by the Republican Party. Democrats are the new reactionaries, and we are all the poorer for it. I wish this were not the case, there does need to be some balance, but when Michael Moore and Howard Dean are the faces of your party, the American people overall will not take the Dems seriously.

Ranting like a crazy person and threatening civil war is not likely to attract many converts either.

By Lawrence D.Pierce

July 20, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

RE:John Roberts nomination for Supreme Court Justice

We have a Constitution that governs our nation and it’s millions of people, it has a single meaning of understanding. Our Constitution does not know conservatives or liberals, it only knows the people it protects, and that’s 300 million Americans. A Judge has to be fair and honest in it’s interpretation of this great document. Webster’s define conservatives as opposed to change; desiring the preservation of the existing order.Remember our nation search for freedom created slavery, if, this is the message they are trying tell me, we will have a long road to travel.

By Barbara

July 21, 2005 10:06 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry about the nomination. We only have a small indication of his views. Women’s rights, Roe vs. Wade, Environmental issues all seem in question. What concerns me is that he and his wife had no control over a 4 year old. What will be his actions when he has the power as a supreme court justice? He has no “power” over the behavior of his own child.

By Mark

July 21, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

In looking at Roberts his legal arguments have been varied on one side he represented 19 states against Microsoft (United States v. Microsoft)and supported the government’s right to put a moratorium on commercial use of a property vs. the developers of the seemingly misnamed Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency vs. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council) but he also sucessfully argued to restrict citizen’s rights to sue the government in environmental cases.(Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation) and also argued to allow protestors to block women from entering clinics that perform abortions (Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic). Most disconcerting to me is his strong apparent ties to the Bush Family and he was instrumental in halting the Florida vote re-counts (Gore v. Bush). Anyone interested in an independent court has to at least be concerned about that.

By Doris Williams

July 21, 2005 12:52 PM | Link to this

I think principally Bush nominated Roberts to deflect attention from Karl Rove and other unethical practices taking place in Washington.I also think Laura Bush threw out the comment of hoping Bush would nominate a female only to appease women, perhaps knowing all along he had Roberts in mind. Roberts clear far right agenda will certainly draw attention away from other major concerns Americans and the world face.