John Roberts
The only thing most of us really want to know, on both sides of the issue is right here in black and white:
John Roberts quoted in the report of the Alliance for Justice:
“[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled… The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” (Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 1392).
There you have it folks, this jurist is on record saying Roe V Wade should be overturned. I don't think it should be overturned, I guess I'll have to talk about why I think that but I am saving that for another post, so I encourage everyone to contact your senators and let them know about this part of John Roberts' record.
The idea, politically, is to cause a big fight. No democrats in the Senate can possibly give this guy a free ride, they're going to have to ask about this, and when they do, well, we'll see. But I am certain that this nomination was sped up a smidge to give Rove and Co. some breathing room, the idea being that the American people are too stupid to be able to fight over a Supreme Court nomination and a treasonous act by a White House official at the same time.
I guess we'll find out.
John Roberts quoted in the report of the Alliance for Justice:
“[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled… The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” (Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 1392).
There you have it folks, this jurist is on record saying Roe V Wade should be overturned. I don't think it should be overturned, I guess I'll have to talk about why I think that but I am saving that for another post, so I encourage everyone to contact your senators and let them know about this part of John Roberts' record.
The idea, politically, is to cause a big fight. No democrats in the Senate can possibly give this guy a free ride, they're going to have to ask about this, and when they do, well, we'll see. But I am certain that this nomination was sped up a smidge to give Rove and Co. some breathing room, the idea being that the American people are too stupid to be able to fight over a Supreme Court nomination and a treasonous act by a White House official at the same time.
I guess we'll find out.
posted by JC at 11:16 PM
1 Comments:
I really had to follow this up, because even though I don't want John Robers on the Supreme Court, unless we find out he has a hooker problem, he's going to be confirmed. It looks like the Democratic senators are going to give him a pass, but not before a few days of harsh questioning and grandstanding for the far left who actually belive Roe v. Wade is in danger. Even with this guy on the court, assuming he wants very badly to overturn it, chances are still pretty low it would happen. All we can hope for at this point is for Rehnquist to hold out till the next election.
Post a Comment
<< Home