Note To The Trusting - Roberts Is A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing!

He is not to be trusted. Bush knows what this guy is all about. His endorsement should be enough to make you deeply suspicious.

Do not buy these Republican talking points that he really doesn't present a challenge to reproductive rights. Anyone that has written a legal brief that clearly states, " We continue to believe that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided..." is a threat to abortion rights. Plain and simple.

I have heard people saw (mostly repugs) that the quote does not reflect his personal opinions or how he would likely rule. Don't believe it. He could have turned that case down and not argued against Roe vs. Wade. He took the case. That makes him a threat.

Anti-Choice groups are already lining up behind his nomination. Does that not tell you what this guy's real views are?

And that is not even getting into the other areas of serious concern about his views. There will be plenty of time for that.

Don't buy the crap! Fight this nomination tooth and nail.

After all, it may be your own body you are protecting.

with an alien in a human body.

Why do all the bushie gang look like freaks?

That is all the proof you should need.

Does he have to send you a personal letter of intent?

is his penchant for taking the side of Corporations over individuals, continually-
His lack of vision concerning 'individual' rights-

and while he claims to revere the Law, he just ruled that 'enemy combattents' can be tried by a military tribunal-

Which goes against ALL 'rules of law'- He clearly supports the view that America is 'above the law'- and i for one can NEVER support that-

When the founding fathers said "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" they stated the belief that humans all over the world were no less or more deserving of being treated as humans- and we are NOT treating all humans 'equally'-

The more i read of the man, the more disturbed i am- Perhaps the 'takings' rulings may reveal his 'corporate' predjuce- And if so, can be used AGAINST him in the minds of republicans, and democrats alike-
The repubs. sure were upset by the Kelo ruling- and Roberts doesn't support the notion of 'states rights' or sticking up for the common man-

He also voted against our own POW's being able to sue for their torture after the Gulf War..... not exactly a 'people' person.

Bush said he worked at a steel mill to earn his way through school- i'd sure like to see who paid his tuition, considering his father was one of the executives of that same 'steel mill'- he's no 'little man who worked his way up out of nothing'- as bush would like to infer-

Why do people try so hard to pretend they 'were' poor, when they hate those who are????-

phoey- phoey- phoey

The guy clearly has procorporate leanings. Like we need more of that. Hell he sided with police that cuffed and arrested a little (12 If I recall) for eating a frenchfry on the subway.

This guy's views are far outside the mainstream regardless of what the repugs and corporate media would have us believe.

Just curious?

Is this worth giving the corporate media what it wants? I good partisan fight that Democrats always lose?

Just curious...

I'm far from trusting, but is this winning a battle that loses a bigger war?

pile???
Hell, didn't the repubs pile on Clinton saying he was only 'wagging' the dog when he ordered bombing on Iraq during the impeachment debacle???
Are we SO inept that we can't walk and chew gum??? Can we not shout WAKE UP AMERICA- WE ARE GETTING SCREWED IN EVERY ORIFICE we have?????!!!

(sorry, i'm manic and furious, and fighting the hoplessness that is seeking to destroy me- and feeling like what is the point of any of this,- good people don't care- good people say what is the point- good people say 'wait'- i can't wait any longer- how low do we have to go as a nation????? i wish like HELL i could take my family and run- but i haven't got the bucks, or the energy) and there's no where to go even if i could.

Strategy hasn't won us anything- it's time to fight for our lives- and i'm not talking guns and bombs- i'm talking standing up and speaking PLAIN TRUTH- life has gone to HELL since bush took office- except for the elite rich- and those with their hands in his pockets-

and i'm running out of time.

He was a government attorney directed to write a brief in a case. He did not have the option of "turning the case down," at least not if he wanted to remain employed for any considerable length of time. I for one do not wish to make the argument that an attorney must always believe in the rightness of the client's cause. After all, the vast majority of those charged with a crime actually committed the crime -- are we willing to take your argument to its logical conclusion by saying that the attorney must believe in the client's innocence before he can effectively represent the client?

PLEASE- read this document-
it shows the 'opinions' that he DOES have concerning 'individual' rights, and the Constitution as a 'living document'- (or a dead one, in his view)

it is a adobe acrobat pdf, or i'd post the most relevent points- look at the last 4-5 pages especially-
i don't want him - i don't trust him.

http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

This article discusses his bias, not simply the 'arguments' he might try and claim were simply to 'win the case'-

and based on my admittedly cursory reading of the article you directed me to, I remain unconvinced that this guy is evil. Nearly every item mentioned begins, "he co-authored a brief on behalf of the government . . ." which essentially reinforces my point that when you are a government attorney you do not have the luxury of turning down assignments. And I would wager his were not the last eyes to rest on that document -- it would have been marked up and edited by nearly everyone above him before he was allowed to put his signature on it.

As for his opinions as a judge, you have to admit that he most likely wrote/concurred in more than the handful of decisions listed in the article, even in only two years. I expect Independent Judiciary, like anyone with a say in the matter, will be doing some selective editing. But of the opinions listed, I find I agree with both his conclusions and reasoning in some of them, and I find that I can follow his reasoning, even if I disagree with his conclusions, in many others.

The biggest thing is, what do we want our judges to do -- either they decide how they want the case to come out, then twist the law and facts as necessary to fit (hello, Bush v. Gore), or they adhere to the facts, the law, and logic, and follow their reasoning wherever it may go, no matter how distasteful the conclusion would be. This guy appears to be doing the latter, and I find that to be a good thing. If someone is using reason, then his mind can be changed.

A wolf is a noble creature.

Cholera is a deadly diarrhea.

I wish people would keep their metaphors straight!

...but as the mother of a lawyer, I can tell you that sometimes they have to argue and submit briefs that are totally contrary to their personal beliefs. My daughter did manage to get herself excused from working a case defending a pedophile priest, but she has had to come to bat for some pretty sleazy oil companies and one particular congressman (whose name I won't mention for confidentiality reasons). She feels kind of slimy about it and calls me to vent -- but it's her job.

You're most likely right about this Roberts guy -- after all, he's a ** appointee -- but I'm just sayin'.............

I agree with you wholeheartedly!

Thank you.