Bush nominates John Roberts

[pnoiSR20]

So Bush nominates John Roberts. He is said to be "intense" in law. Critics disagree with this because supposedly he is too conservative and is big in the whole Roe v. Wade case. Liberals think he might control too much of the abortion debate. So...is Roberts the right candidate?

[Mustangman25]

As a liberal, I knew that I would be upset with almost any choice that Bush made, so it's not really surprising...the only thing that concerns me is the fact that he's only been a judge for 2 years. He's argued a few cases in front of the Supreme Court, but I'd perfer someone with a life appointment to the highest court of the land to not be learning on the job, so to speak, and be an accomplished judge, even if I disagree with views. My two cents.

[pnoiSR20]

It kinda sucks because he is only like 50 years old. That means if he stays healthy...he's gonna be there for a long time.

[YogsVR4]

I don't know a lot about the guy, but I do like that he's more of a strict constitionalist then not. No legislating from the bench.

[illegal_eagle187]

i dunno much about the guy, ive heard about him in some news, but i wonder if the democrats are gonna go against it

[lazysmurff]

i dont like the guy. something stinks, im not sure what, but it could be that he has consistently contributed the largest amount possible to bushs campaigns.

but this does give me hope.

Roberts has said, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. . . . There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

[Mustangman25]

That quote is interesting...as is that campaign contribution. What's everyone's opinion on whether or not he'll be appointed? From what I'm reading, a lot of the Senate democrats are not saying that they will flat out oppose him, but are simply saying that he will be given a very stern appointment hearing(s). As much as it pains me, I do think that he will be appointed.

[lazysmurff]

hmm, its kinda tricky. i expected his first try to be rejected easily, but this guys is kinda iffy. even the extreme left winger websites i go to cant dig up much negative dirt on this guy. so who knows.

normally we would have years, maybe even decades of judging experience to look at and review in order to follow his stance on things. but all we have is a couple of years, and a bunch of quotes on issues.

as long as they sniff this guy out good, and can honestly say that they have made what decision they believe is best, i couldnt care either way.

[tenguzero]

as long as they sniff this guy out good, and can honestly say that they have made what decision they believe is best, i couldnt care either way.

I'll second that. The problem is that (especially with today's politics being so heavily charged) there's probably really no one you can go with who WON'T be disliked by one side or the other. If the person *appears* to conservative, whiny democrats will bitch and moan, if the appointed *appears* too liberal, whiny republicans will hem and haw.

Rarely do I agree with ANYTHING Rush Limbaugh says (do to the fact that the guy's intolerably ignorant) but I do agree with him when he says the issue should NOT be about keeping a "balance" of conservatives to liberals in the supreme court (like numerous talking heads on both sides of the aisle have said) because their job is only to interpret the constitution and follow guidelines in place from previous cases. Not rule by their own views.

[Mustangman25]

I agree with that...the judge's views should not have any bearing on how they rule, but many people expect the justices to do just that, and I think the president is pressured to nominate a judge who people think will vote for their views, hence the concentration in the media on Roberts' conservative views.