![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
About John Roberts....
He may be competent and personable. But he's only 50 years old. That means he could be on the supreme court 35 years. I don't want anyone with "extreme" views, conservative OR liberal, on the court 35 years. I want a moderate--I feel a moderate has less axes to grind, and will be more likely to really look hard at the constitution and precedent when deciding cases.
So far, the best place to sign petitions seems to be True Majority--you can also edit the letter, although this one is probably the best. (MoveOn.org's harps on his being a right-winger. So are my senators.)
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/supremecourt
From True Majority:
"Over the next few weeks, the media will likely describe John Roberts as a bright and well-respected conservative, someone well-liked in the halls of power. What really matters, though, is the impact his decisions would have on Americans in the coming decades. His record shows he has argued against affirmative action, reproductive rights, conserving nature and protecting prisoners of war.[1] He doesn't share our beliefs."
From Move On:
"We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion."
Yes, it may be a losing battle. But I feel better after sending a letter. I don't often bother to read the replies--they so rarely have anything to do with what I wrote about--but at least I've said something.
If you don't care about anything else, THIS is something you should care about. Impeaching a justice is a pain--and doesn't happen. What we get, we're stuck with...so speak up now.
Postscript: The man seems to be well-educated, and well thought of by many judges, including moderates. I still don't think he's moderate enough--but I could live with him. Because I suspect he may be the most moderate candidate Bush can appoint without the Dobson crew screaming from the rafters. Bush can't afford to lose this--so he tried to please true conservatives, and moderate Republicans. And do what he could for Democrats--Roberts apparently has been fair on disability issues and affirmative rights.
Besides--Ann Coulter doesn't like him. That's good!
So far, the best place to sign petitions seems to be True Majority--you can also edit the letter, although this one is probably the best. (MoveOn.org's harps on his being a right-winger. So are my senators.)
http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/supremecourt
From True Majority:
"Over the next few weeks, the media will likely describe John Roberts as a bright and well-respected conservative, someone well-liked in the halls of power. What really matters, though, is the impact his decisions would have on Americans in the coming decades. His record shows he has argued against affirmative action, reproductive rights, conserving nature and protecting prisoners of war.[1] He doesn't share our beliefs."
From Move On:
"We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion."
Yes, it may be a losing battle. But I feel better after sending a letter. I don't often bother to read the replies--they so rarely have anything to do with what I wrote about--but at least I've said something.
If you don't care about anything else, THIS is something you should care about. Impeaching a justice is a pain--and doesn't happen. What we get, we're stuck with...so speak up now.
Postscript: The man seems to be well-educated, and well thought of by many judges, including moderates. I still don't think he's moderate enough--but I could live with him. Because I suspect he may be the most moderate candidate Bush can appoint without the Dobson crew screaming from the rafters. Bush can't afford to lose this--so he tried to please true conservatives, and moderate Republicans. And do what he could for Democrats--Roberts apparently has been fair on disability issues and affirmative rights.
Besides--Ann Coulter doesn't like him. That's good!
no subject
Damn straight.
no subject
But I'd rather have someone a little more moderate. Still--if they Bork him, we might get someone worse. So, let's have a few questions.
no subject
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/roberts.html
eg.
"A proponent of states' rights even if it costs the safety of women and girls, in a 1999 radio interview he said, "We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) or anything else. The fact of the matter is: conditions are different in different states and state laws can be more relevant.""
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/retirement/roberts_choice_highlights.pdf
"In Rust v. Sullivan,2 the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule, whereby doctors working in family planning programs receiving federal funds were barred from even discussing abortion options with patients, did not violate constitutional protections."
He reminds me of Anton Scalia, whom I regard as a dangerous fanatic.
There are people who are brilliant scholars and researchers, but nonetheless are not people I want on the Supreme Court--they include Richard M. Stallman (I wonder if Stallman knows Roberts, they were at Harvard some of the same years), Noam Chomsky, etc.
Replacing one of the -two- women on the US Supreme Court, in a country that is more than 50% female, with Yet Another Rightwing anti-Title IX etc. white male, is an obscenity.
no subject
I agree. Or at least a Hispanic judge--not Gonzales, please--but why not a conservative woman to balance Ruth? More and more the court is going to have to deal with issues for women and minorities. It would be nice if a few of the members had more than second hand info...
no subject
Notes:
1. Apparently Roberts' wife is a founding member of a group which is anti-abortion but also has the focus of trying to -prevent- unwanted pregnancies and improve the self-esteem and financial well-being of women. I still don't like the focus on banning abortion and what she's been quoted as saying/doing (apparently she stood up in front of an audience at someplace like Harvard and said "you have missing classmates who were aborted") but it's not the only focus of the group.
2. Roberts was involved in the irregularity-lade 2000 Florida election as an advisor to Jeb Bush. UGH
no subject
Oh, great. Just what we need.
I hear they adopted their children. I think it's obvious they are for solving the problem of abortion by pushing adoption. Her groups sounds better than most of them. But she's clearly drawn the line--for her, a blasteoplast (sp?) is a human...