Ann Coulter is leary of John G. Roberts

Then I’m all for him :laugh: Senators - please confirm him quickly!

No question, he is in. Just a bit of ritual in the way.

Quote (Mr Soul @ July 20 2005,11:49)
Then I'm all for him :laugh: Senators - please confirm him quickly!

what a well thought out reason...

geez. :)

Actually I don’t like Roberts at all based on the little I know about him but he’ll get confirmed.

shock me, shock me, shock me!!!

The thing is, Mike, he is totally qualified, and you know what happens to really smart people devoted to the law when they get on the SC. It could be much, much worse.

Tom,

I had never heard of this guy before yesterday and even this morning people were calling him a "darkhorse"

What makes him more palatable to the moderates on both sides of the aisle, any idea?

He is a very, very good lawyer and the reports are that he is personable and reasonable. Since they are supposed to determine only if he is qualified, there should be little debate. In any case, I think there is always the hope that reasonable people accept reasoned argument, so we libs will eventually have him on our side. :) Seriously, perhaps he is not really palatable to the dems, but there is no reason to challenge him based on qualifications, and just look at who some of the alternatives were. Unless some skeleton appears (and he did get approved for the ct of appeals, so that would seem to rule out skeletons) it will be a short game and he’ll be sitting by next term.

Kind of a disappointment, really, I was looking forward to a big battle. But I suppose Bush did not want that right now.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
…and you know what happens to really smart people devoted to the law when they get on the SC.

Right - they end up more liberal than people thought they would (sorry Ann :laugh: )

Time will only tell fellers. But I personnally have a bad feeling about this dude.

Sumpin’ bout his eyes I don’t like.

Yaz - I do too, and he’ll could be there for 30+ years.

There had a college buddy of his on NPR yesterday (a liberal) who said he was a Roberts was a good man. Roberts is a corporate lawyer - you know one of the bad guys.

Shummer was on PBS last night. He didn’t vote for him on the Circuit Judge appointment because Roberts wouldn’t answer his questions. My guess is that he won’t answer them now.

The Democrats should fillibuster this guy if he doesn’t answer the questions. If he does, then he should pass, but at least the American people will know who they’re getting (if they bother to find out).

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Roberts is a corporate lawyer - you know one of the bad guys.


i hope you’ll clarify this incredibly absurd statement as an over-generalization resulting from temporary acute neurosis.

isaac

Come on Isaac - where have you been? Lawyers have been consistently been smeared by the right-wing for a long time. Usually it’s trial lawyers like John Edwards, who help people like you & I, but it’s a broad umbrella.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Usually it’s trial lawyers like John Edwards, who help people like you & I


is this a joke?..who is this?!.. did you kill the reasonable mike and begin posing as him on the ntrack forum?!..

your quoted statement above could be argued to the end of days… many people believe that trial lawyers are a major player in the rising cost of health services - how does that “help people like you and [me]”?.. concerning john edwards, i encourage you to research his involvement with the increasing number of caesarian sections… just be sure you read the statistics as well…

isaac

I’m not going to do your homework about John Edwards but he was a good trial lawyer & won cases for people like you & me.

Here’s what I found on Roberts:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
(AP) - Some of Judge John Roberts’ stands on issues that come before the Supreme Court:

ABORTION: As a lawyer in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush’s father, he helped write a Supreme Court brief that said: “We continue to believe that Roe (v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”



RELIGION: Roberts unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to rule that public schools could sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. “We do not believe … that graduation ceremonies pose a risk of coercion,” said the brief Roberts helped to write on behalf of the first Bush administration.

ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads.

CRIMINAL MATTERS: His votes on the bench have been mixed. He ruled in favor of a man who challenged his sentence for fraud, then said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a train station in Washington.

POLICE SEARCHES: Joined an appeals court ruling in 2004 that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are looking for evidence of a crime.

MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Roberts was part of a unanimous decision last week that allowed the Pentagon to proceed with plans to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

I probably would have given Kerry a better look last election had he chose a different running mate than Edwards.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
many people believe that trial lawyers are a major player in the rising cost of health services -


I don’t just believe it, I’m 99.9% SURE of it. Where else but the good ol’ USA can you stub your toe on the curb, get a lawyer, sue the city, the city engineer, his dog and the concrete manufacturer, HIS dog and walk away with millions of dollars? Of course, you only get a tiny percentage. The “Legal Fees” get the rest. I’m telling you fellers, personal responsibility is out the d@#n window in the USA. "It’s someone else’s fault and I’m d@#n well gonna SUE 'em for it!"

TG

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
many people believe that trial lawyers are a major player in the rising cost of health services


buncha studies show that the legal costs are a small fraction (less than 1%) of the increased costs.

I’ll see if I can find links. :)

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
personal responsibility is out the d@#n window in the USA


AMEN!

isaac

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
buncha studies show that the legal costs are a small fraction (less than 1%) of the increased costs.

Exactly Tom. This notion of trial lawyers is the main cause of rising health care costs is just pure BS & right-wing spin. Health care costs are rising for many reasons but lawsuits are not the main ones.

There are powerful lobbyists (MBNA, etc) who have recently gotten laws passed to prevent liability lawsuits, i.e., so they won’t be able to be sued. They’ve been trying to do this for years but now the Republicans are in charge.

And this is the lie that Libertarians don’t tell you. If they had their way, then lawyers would become more powerful in this country because we would all have to hire lawyers to fight the government, fight each other, etc.