Roberts wrote brief supporting the barring of citizens from suing

over "Mountain Top Removal"
That is enough for me right there. Of course there are plenty of other reasons to oppose him also.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071902065_pf.html

<snip>
Some of his liberal critics point in particular to a brief he wrote supporting the National Mining Association in its efforts to bar lawsuits by local citizens against a type of mineral extraction that involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the debris in streams.
<snip>

....
1. Helping Dick Cheney to keep his energy task force hidden.
2. Stopping the recount in Florida in 2000

He is a made man in the bush crime family.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0720-01.htm

<snip>
Just last week, Roberts was part of the unanimous three-judge panel that put the Bush administration's military tribunals in the war on terror back on track, clearing the way for the Pentagon to resume trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
<snip>

You are hired by your client to represent them. You write briefs supporting and advocating your client's position. What you argue and opine in your brief is not necessarily your convictions, it is the argument and the facts necessary to advocate your client's position.

I'm not saying Robert's doesn't hold these convictions, I am saying you can't tell just because he represented his client and wrote a brief in support of their position.

:think:

would you let yourself be hired to write such a brief?

to survive. If it meant keeping my job, paying the bills, making partner to be in a position to take on the client's I care about and that matter, a 1000 different reasons, yes.

I debated in oppositin to Roe v. Wade in college because that was my assignment, for my grade. Did I agree with my position, did I believe my argument? No, but I got an "A".

sad.

Not all lawyers will sell their soul. But most will when starting out, trying to get their foot in the door and to a place where they can afford to make the difference, they will sell their soul. They often come back with a vengence, making the difference they have wanted to make along. So easy for you to judge without knowing what most go through to survive.

Hope if you ever need one, you find one that has made the sacrifices and still cares about his clients.

I'd be interested in hearing from some who were faced with that choice and refused. I'm certain there are many.

make partner and they are sitting back, in one spot, at the same salary forever, with others watching for them to make a mistake so that their office can be given to another eager beaver, willing to do what has to be done to climb the rungs.

If a lawyer represents a known guilty person, he is not defending them in an effort to get them "off", he is providing them the defense that they are entitled to under the consitution and he is holding the state to its burden. He is protecting the defendant's rights and when he protects their rights, he is protecting yours and mine.

When a lawyer advocates for his client, he is making sure that the client's legal rights are properly protected and that the opponent meets the standard of proof that the law provides. He is protecting the rights of the client and as he protects the rights, he is protecting your rights.

in providing someone defense against a rape charge, and writing a brief that supports the act of rape(or MTR).

I don't mean to be dense, but MTR?

sorry, just being lazy.. :-)

the argument "he wrote a brief" is a weak argument. Yes, lawyers are paid to argue a position, that is their job. I won't even try to defend his arguing for any position as I don't know his heart or the circumstances of his life that made him continue in the position that required he so advocate.

From today's Democracy Now! www.democracynow.org

<snip>
AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Northup, President for the Center for Reproductive Rights, Roberts, again, as Deputy Solicitor General filed a friend of the court brief for the United States, supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing protesters' behavior didn't amount to discrimination against women, even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion. Can you talk about this case?

NANCY NORTHUP: That's right, and again, what's important to remember here is he was Principal Deputy Solicitor General, the highest ranking political position, other than the Solicitor General.

AMY GOODMAN: And the Solicitor General was Kenneth Starr.

NANCY NORTHUP: Yes. And it was the decision to intervene in this case. The United States was an amicus in this case. They didn't have to file a brief in this case. They chose to, and they did it not just in this case but in a lot of cases around the country in which they came in on the side of protesters against clinics and women, and if we go back and think about what was happening in the late 1980s and early 1990s, violence at clinics, scary things were happening, and enormous blockades by Operation Rescue that were preventing women from getting their reproductive health care. And it was the decision of John Roberts that he would come in on the side of the protesters and not on the side of women, so again, when we look at this case, when we look at the position that he took in Rust v. Sullivan, and overall, to have been part of a Department of Justice whose policy was to get the Supreme Court over and over again to overturn Roe v. Wade, those are serious questions he needs to answer in this confirmation process.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain Rust v. Sullivan.

NANCY NORTHUP: Well, Rust v. Sullivan was a law that said that family planning programs that get government money, not that they are going to use that money to perform abortions -- that's been prohibited -- but that they could not even speak about it, a doctor could not even speak to his patient or her patient who says, ‘Well, I think I would like to terminate this pregnancy, can you let me know if that's possible?’ couldn't even talk about it. And the position in that case was that that wasn't a First Amendment violation.

Now ultimately, unfortunately and regrettably, the Supreme Court agreed, but what's significant about John Roberts's role and the Solicitor General's position was they asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Wasn't at issue in the case. They could just argue, as the Supreme Court eventually found, it wasn't a First Amendment violation, but they went so far as to say we ought to overturn Roe v. Wade. That is a very aggressive position, and to suggest now that this isn't the position of John Roberts is hard to take.

<snip>

Did he have aspirations to become something more than he was (like SCOTUS)?

I am not defending this guy - how many times do I have to say that - I am saying that to write a brief is not the same thing as your personal and moral convictions. Actually, his being a catholic that adopted his children is stronger support for his pro-life stance than saying he "wrote briefs".

I don't necessarily think you are defending the guy, but in this case he was clearly a major player in RW activism IMO.

power in an effort to reach their ultimate goal (SCOTUS being the dream of most lawyers) only to disappoint the appointing party once they have the position because they actually love the nation and follow the constitution?

evicerating them . . .

..... mountain top removal kills the land. And if you take money so
as to allow this environmental rape to happen their is a certain amount
of guilt by association.

Look I have never met a lawyer who does not think he/she can make the
argument that water is not wet but it is ....... and this guy is a made man
in the bush crime family.

At Hogan & Hartson, he headed the firm's appellate practice. It is here that he also represented coal companies.
He became a millionaire; his net worth is between $2,780,039.44 and $6,870,000.

(from the WP link in the OP)

and has gained his place in "society" because he has kissed the BFEE's ass. I don't trust a one of them and have more experience dealing with these thugs than most. However, that does not negate the obvious as stated in my post.

A lawyer "writing briefs" does not equate to his legal convictions and using the argument that he wrote briefs opposing Roe v. Wade is not a legitimate argument, imho.

Hell, I did the same thing in debate class in college. It was my task and I completed it.

For lawyers it is the notion that their job is to represent their clients, not judge them. Your reasoning would result in all those accused of crimes being left without counsel. The job of an attorney is to represent their client, not judge them.

Briefs might not represent his or hers own thoughts but the body of
his work seems to show that he is more then a little friendly to the
extractive industries.

Again law class 101 ...... just because you have a murderer as a client
does not mean you are a murderer.

Real world ....... If by your legal work you allow your client to continue to
do mountain top removal you are part of the problem too.

My background is in ecology ....... mountain top removal kills the land and
the water ..... and it done that way because it is cheaper ..... they don't need
fill in the valleys.

from taking them on as a client.

This justice should not be affiliated or beholding to GW....

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13523


DC Circuit Decisions & Federal Circuit Decisions

John Roberts, DC Circuit

In the short time since he was confirmed by the Senate in May 2003, Judge Roberts has issued troubling dissents from decisions by the full D.C. Circuit not to reconsider two important rulings. These included a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act as applied in a California case and a ruling against Bush Administration efforts to keep secret the records concerning Vice President Cheney's energy task force.


Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003): constitutionality of Endangered Species Act

This case involved a real estate development company's contention that the application of the Endangered Species Act to its construction project in California was an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. After the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the company's project "was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad," placed on the Endangered Species List by the Secretary of the Interior in 1994, the company filed suit "ather than accept an alternative plan proposed by the Service." Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The district court dismissed the company's complaint, and a panel of the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the dismissal (323 F.3d 1062), following prior D.C. Circuit precedent upholding congressional authority under the Endangered Species Act. By a vote of 7-2, the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc (by the entire court) of the panel's ruling.


The only dissenters were Judges Roberts and Sentelle. All of the other Republican-appointed judges on the court - Judges Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph - joined the court's Democratic appointees in voting to deny rehearing en banc. The panel's opinion upholding the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause in this case not only followed D.C. Circuit precedent, but was also consistent with a recent ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 (2001). The opinion in that case upholding the authority of Congress to protect endangered species on private lands was written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a conservative Republican-appointee.

Roberts's dissent in Rancho Viejo strongly suggested that he thought it would be unconstitutional to apply the Endangered Species Act in this case. By his vote to rehear the case and thus potentially reverse the district court, Roberts indicated that he may well be ready to join the ranks of such right-wing officials as Judge Michael Luttig (who dissented in Gibbs) and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor - nominated by President Bush to the Eleventh Circuit - in their efforts to severely limit the authority of Congress to protect environmental quality as well as the rights and interests of ordinary Americans.


In re: Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9205 (2003): secrecy of Vice President Cheney's energy task force

Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court's 5-3 denial of a petition for rehearing en banc (with one judge not participating) filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney's energy task force. This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President's task force had violated federal law by not making its records public. The court's ruling marked "the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public." Carol D. Leonnig, "Energy Task Force Appeal Refused," Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2003). At the Administration's urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004.

** PROFILE **

FindLaw.com: http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2581160_1

**DKosopedia:
http://tinyurl.com/e3uzr

(Hint, one profile lists Roberts' dealings with Ken
Starr and his actions as a corporate lobbyist and
White House counsel... the other doesn't so much)

and each one is reason enough to oppose this guy!

The rhetoric has to change to win the hearts and minds.

«Some of his liberal critics point in particular to a brief he wrote supporting the National Mining Association in its efforts to bar lawsuits by local citizens against a type of mineral extraction that involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the debris in streams.»

This could be restated as "paved the way for unscrupulous companies to start poisoning Americans."

"limited the rights of working americans for just compensation."

"muddled the Florida 2000 election recount."

Etc. Gosh it's easy, once you get started.

We have got to win back the base and make it tough for the Repugs to say or think anything, for fear the trouble they will get into.

because you told the truth

Now I'm not advocating this because it's totally evil and wrong and will do nothing to change hearts and minds, but here's Rovian:

Paved the way for unscrupulous companies to start poisoning Americans becomes "Wants industrial waste in your baby's bottle"

Limited the rights of working Americans for just compensation becomes "Thinks Americans should work for free"

Muddled the Florida election recount is "took away your right to vote" or "hates democracy"