Justice John G. Roberts?

Why Massachusetts or Canada?

 

When I was taking Professor Paul A. Lowdenslager's (BA, Saint John's College; MA, University of Dallas; PhD, University of Illinois; Professor of Political Science, Western State College, 1978-1995) Constitutional Law class at Western State College in Spring 1984, he duly noted that the Founding Dudes considered the state governments to be guardians against oppression by the national government. The consensus of the class was that the state governments tend to be cesspools of oppression and that the Supreme Court is needed as an ultimate arbitrer of civil liberties.

 

Well, at least the senior President Bush knew how to talk with his hands. And he didn't like broccoli. So there's two things that Bush Sr. and I can agree on.

 

same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts and looks like inevitable in The Dominon of Canada..it was only a joke I guess a bad one..consideing I must explain it.

 

Oh! I thought Hawaii and California were good for those purposes! If I know little fauss, I'd say that was a beer commercial type of "I love you man!"

 

Hawaii n' stuff....

I remember the California same sex marriage situation that took place in San Francisco, but I missed the Hawaii thing. What happened there?

 

Re: Hawaii n' stuff....

Don't remember whether there were any recent decisions or anything in Hawaii. But at the time of some recent decision (possibly Massachusetts) a friend's gay brother remarked that before this he would have had to go to Hawaii.

 

He hasn't been confirmed yet. I think that will happen in September, but I am not totally sure. As far as how smoothly it will go: Well, I don’t know if this means anything, but I did hear John McCain say today on the Sean Hannity show that a filibuster would be unlikely. He also seemed to be a huge fan of John Roberts. I have a feeling McCain is right about the filibuster since Roberts hasn’t taken too many official positions on big issues. His wife, on the other hand, is apparently a big time pro-lifer involved with Women for Life. I don’t think the Dems will be able to hold his wife’s view against him, though. My guess (I'm right every once in a while) is that only the extreme libs will oppose him unless something big comes out in the confirmation hearings.

 

It's interesting, and sad, how this thread is being abused to promote various political lobbies via piles of links in sig lines. Nice try, Bill, Nos, Ted, Mr E. And, no, if they were left-wing lobbies I would not dislike their presence here any more, or any less. It's not the purpose of this board to advertise for political websites. I appreciate those of you who know better, and wish you happy arguing.

 

Mind your business!!!

I'm definitely not the only person here who has political links in his/her signature line. Some people have very long signature lines, and some people have none. You know better. Your post is just another sorry excuse to start trouble.

Either way, Uncle Insults, what’s it to you? Why not just mind your business? Ted and I were having a decent discussion (at least I thought so) until you decided to pass judgment. You are a mean spirited person with a dark heart. I'll pray for you.

 

Aw, Unc, this is Political Discussions.

 

Aw, Ted, what's the use?

 

Whoa! Let me pass some judgment then too...

Hey Busho4, or whatever it is you are trying to call yourself....

The good unk calls them like he sees them - and is the last person on this board that I would term a "trouble maker"....

On the other hand, YOU seem to take particular delight in presenting a hideous nearly hysterical right-wing agenda filled with web links to all sorts of extremism on nearly every single post.

I've heard your line of crap before, and am calling it that right here - right now!

Take your right-wing BS and peddle it to the backward, ignorant regions from which you and the likes of you draw your support.

Carl

 

Bush04,

I don't think you can really say Judge Roberts has made contradictory statements concerning abortion. You, of all people, know that what one argues in a brief on behalf of a client does not necessarily reflect one's own views or even judicial philosophy.

The way I read it, Judge Roberts said that he would follow established law if confirmed to the Court of Appeals for the D.C.Circuit and that's ALL he said.

Now, this raises an interesting jurisprudence question; to what extent should the U.S. Supreme Court consider itself bound by precedent? We know with absolute historical certainty that C.J. Rehnquist was correct when he said that the Court should not be bound by past decisions that were, in fact, erroneous. Plessey v. Fergusen is the classic example.

On the other hand, J. Scalia and other "original intent" people seem to argue that there is ONE right answer valid for ALL TIME and that is can be found by examining the text of the constitution in light of its literal meaning in 1789. Doesn't this mean that the document will become increasingly irrelevant in our rapidly changing society? Well, apparently not because the people retain (as I myself have argued) the ultimate power of amendment. But if the people don't amend, then it means what it has always meant. To my way of thinking, the constitution interpreted this way becaomes a barrier to the ability of the people to govern themselves!

(This, BTW, is one of the reasons I maintain that J. Scalia is either a well spoken fool or a cold blooded legal charlatan.)

As to what would happen if Roe were over ruled; there are two scenerios. Either the power to regulate abortion would devolve upon the state legislatures or, and this is the pro-choice nightmare and the pro life daydream, Congress would arrogate the power to forbid abortion as a federal crime.

I am inclined to think that the Supreme Court would take a dim view of such Congressional action since it would infringe upon the rights of states. But THAT, my dears, is a GUESS.

Now if over ruling Roe merely returned us to the "status quo ante", each state would do as it sees fit. At this point, I wonder how many states would forbid abortion outright and how many would continue as they are?

Note to little fauss: Consider re reading Roe. The Roe Court didn't invent the right to privacy. It merely applied that theory to abortion.

Further note to Bush04: Please do not throw unnecessaty rocks at Uncle. He is one of the saner voices here.

Further further note: I anticipate zero difficulty in getting Judge Roberts confirmed. NO ONE questions his credentials, competence, integrity, or personal virtue.

 

That's my private business as well as my dear friend Osborne's. Even though I don't believe that the Constitution guarantees an all-encompassing right to privacy, I'm pragmatic enough to take full advantage thereof if such is recognized by the Supreme Court.

 

Sorry little fauss but Bush04 has won my affections!

 

Only God will judge me.....

The “Good Unk”, huh? Does a good man (a purported man of God) toss around personal insults only because he disagrees with a personal point of view? I don’t think so. I didn't say anything to Uncle Janko in this post, or in the other posts where he insulted me. I was just talking with Ted, and Janko chimed in to pass my judgment on my signature line, which was obviously an attempt to start trouble.

So, let's get this straight. People can plug their books, websites, and services so that they can make a profit, but I can't post a few links that represent the way I feel? Certain left wingers (some who I like, btw) can post long sig lines in Latin with links to conspiracy theory type sites, but I can’t post a few informational links? Others can post their IQ and list all of the schools they attended, but you take offense to my links? If they bother you so much, just look away because unless Bruce (or admin) deletes them, they aren’t going anywhere.

More importantly, Karl, I take big time offense to your calling my links hideous and hysterical. What is so hideous about the Vatican website? Do you not like Catholics or other Christians? What is so hysterical about the American Life League website? I am a pro-life Catholic, and I feel very very very strongly about abortion. Others may (or may not) find these particular sites interesting, and who knows, they may (or may not) change some hearts and minds.

Also, what is so right wing or even political about the firearm websites? Firearm owners and CCW holders, especially those who travel interstate, will find lots of useful information on those websites. Just ask Bruce or any LEO how state firearms laws are extremely inconsistent and can lead to good people getting into lots of trouble.

It is unfortunate that you feel the need to resort to name calling. I’m sure I disagree with you on many issues, but I certainly respect your right to express them. To me, many of your views could probably be classified as far left of mainstream. However, I will refrain from calling you names, insulting your position, and calling your religion hideous and/or hysterical. Please show me the same respect. Then, maybe we can debate some of the issues in a respectful manner.

Take care!

 

You’re right, Nosborne. However, Judge Roberts did make the statements, and whether they represented his personal views or not, they are all we have to go by. I think this is why both pro abortion and pro life groups don’t know what to make of the guy. I do suspect you are right about the confirmation going smoothly, though.

Even further note to Nosborne: I haven’t said anything to Janko for a long time. If you re-read this post, you will see that Janko was the one who started trouble regarding my sig line.

As Justice Harlan said in Cohen v. California, 403 US 15 (1971) viewers can merely avert their eyes. So, if you, Janko, or anyone else doesn’t like my links, feel free to simply avert your eyes or your mouse buttons. You even have the option of ignoring my posts. Feel free to use that option.

By the way, Nosborne: You’ve won my affections also. I’m really not the jerk, non-human, or hideous and hysterical person Carl and Janko have made me out to be.

 

I apologize....

Busho4,
I apologize for taking such a strident tone with you earlier today. I was upset when I saw you going after Janko, who I hold in high regard. Therefore I lashed out at you. You have also won my affections in your reasoned and gentlemanly reply to my bombast. Take care, and keep up the good debate....
Carl

 

Thank you, Carl...

Carl, I appreciate very much your response. It means alot. We all lash out once in a while. The way you've dealt with it here shows what kind of good person you really are. Take care.