John Roberts labeled as “moderate.” How accurate is that? -->

Ha!, moderate! Right. And Howard Dean is a commie and Judith Miller a martyr. Roberts is certainly not a moderate, he’s a right-wing activist with an agenda. He despises the rule of law, and has noted that he’d like to see the executive branch of government enjoy more power.

So much for checks and balances. Repeatedly over his career he has gone after minorities. He’s had an iron-fist approach to justice. He recommended against expanding the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because, as he wrote, the extension would “not simply extend the existing and effective Voting Rights Act, but would dramatically change it ... It’s not broken so there’s no need to fix it,” he claimed.

After his stint as Solicitor General’s he took a gig with the National Mining Association and hence his ruling against environmentalists when they challenged development practices that were impeding on an endangered species. The list goes on. Moderate Justice? My ass. Too bad the Democrats are going to rubber stamp this creep.
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mic... /

What is that saying.."A man with one eye is considered wise in a society of all blind men."

Let's keep things in context.

for a year that Roberts would deliver the goods.

If the fascists that run the government nominated a non fascist in their efforts to control the courts, that would be news nobody could keep quiet. He is the fascists' fascist.

Calling Roberts moderate is disinformation. They will not even release real information on his history of legal writings. Hold the truth and spread the lies.

I call bullshit on the article.

make sure there was no recount.

All spin and disinformation.

I have ?s about his "support" for
gay rights in the past ..... might he not be supporting himself?
Not that their is something wrong with being gay but to
be gay and a bush repug is like being a jew for Hitler.

And, just like in the Bolton nomination, the White House refuses to release Roberts' full record, handicapping the Senate's ability to do its constitutionally mandated job of advise and consent. The Executive is seeking to set itself up as primary over the Legislative branch, which is unconstitutional.

Why is George W. Bush violating the oath he took to preserve, protect and defend the constitution?

Bush nominated him, so he should not be confirmed. Period. The key is damaging Bush, making him vulnerable so his stolen reign can be ended. Roberts should be opposed no matter what.

The issue is whether Roberts is fit for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Since Bush named him, we have every reason to be skeptical. But we need to attack Roberts based on Roberts' record and philosophy as warranted. If Roberts' record is bad enough, calling attention to that will hurt Bush.

One way or another Bush got a second term. We can't change that. I do agree that the Democrats should use every tactic available to slow down Roberts' confirmation in retaliation for the Bolton appointment.

Bush cannot be allowed to name a justice. The only way to stop that is to find the skeletons in their closets and get them removed from consideration.

It sounds impossible, even ridiculous, I know, but look at the alternatives.

Quite honestly, the fact that he's "conservative" ought to be enough to disqualify him.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Would nominate a moderate as a Supreme Court Justice?

You can almost bet two things: Bush knows exactly how Roberts will rule in key cases and that he will rule as a diehard conservative Republican especially on social issues.