Supreme Court Pick Out! Name: John Roberts

Theresa · **Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:18 pm**

From what I've read about him, I think he's a good choice. Someone totally bipartisan would be perfect, yes, and when you find that someone, let me know, please.

Republican_Man · **Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:36 pm**

Starbuck · **Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:00 pm**

My problem isn't with him being conservative. My problem is that it won't be balanced anymore.

Theresa · **Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:03 pm**

Like it was before...
They become "Supreme Court Justices". How elite. Not "former blah blah blah", only "Supreme Court Justice ________".

Hitchhiker · **Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:14 pm**

I thoroughly how this topic didn't last one page without turning into a mudslinging competition.

Remind me when we're going to have an intellectual debate without insulting the other side.

Anyway, if only to slide this post past the spam monitor . . . I think what the Democrats really have to consider is, Can they actually afford to oppose this nomination? Considering that the Republicans have a majority, the Democrats have to pick and choose their battles carefully, and let some other contested points slide.

I'm not much into "predicting" the outcome of events, but I think there will be a nice, thorough investigation into this fellow, but he will be eventually approved. Then the political entity will move on to its next impasse of idiocy, ending in a light sautee of controversy and scandal. Let cool for two hours. Serves 300 million.

Republican_Man · **Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:24 pm**

Republican_Man · **Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:28 pm**

^It's not mudslinging. It's honest arguments in debate.

Cathexis · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 5:49 am**

Hmm..is there any more info on this guy? Sounds like Bush might've actually made a good choice for once, I'd like to know more about Mr. Roberts.

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:31 am**

This worries me--so many of you liberals supporting Roberts! I might have to rethink my thoughts on this guy!

j/k

Actually, this is good. Bush has a nominee greatly accepted by both parties, which works well for a job like the Supreme Court.

And don't let the media convince you that he's for the dismantling of Roe V. Wade. He also said that it's the law of the land. Therefore, I don't know where he stands there. AND don't let them convince you that he's an "ultra-conservative," which is also false.

LightningBoy · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:49 pm**

Conservative judges typically are better judges, since they beleive less in judicial activism. Meaning that a conservative judge is probably more likely to vote for a liberal descision, than a liberal judge is to vote for a conservative descision. Conservatives, like Scalia, tend to be constitutional texturalists, meaning that they go by the book, no exceptions. Whereas liberal judges, like Ginsburg, feel that they need to use their power to push society forward, even if that means molding and stretching the constitution past its usefullness.

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:51 pm**

^Good point. That's so true. Conservatives are more constructionalist, Liberals are more activist.

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:53 pm**

That isn't a bad thing, necessarily, though.

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:44 pm**

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:39 pm**

Being activist? As I recall, the supreme court also struck down such laws that supported segregation in schools. Changing laws isn't always a bad course of action.

Republican_Man · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:22 pm**

IntrepidIsMe · **Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 pm**

Activism isn't when laws are changed? Or at least thats what it looked like you referring to earlier.

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:21 am**

IntrepidIsMe · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:49 pm**

Mhmmm. But it was still a law. What if they say that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional? You'd have a problem with it, obviously, and consider it "activism."

So, whats the difference?

LightningBoy · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:18 pm**

The Supreme Court either uphold or strikes down laws all the time. That isn't activism. Activism is when you uphold (or strike down) laws based on your feelings about the topic, rather than what the constitution and other founding documents say.

As for segregation; "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." That isn't activism, that's texturalism at its finest.

IntrepidIsMe · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:23 pm**

Thanks for clearing that up,

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:25 pm**

I am now for secret Mosque watches--the government sending an agent into the Mosques just to monitor them and see if there's any extremest activity there. Then, if there is, they shut them down and put the members in an internment camp or something--I'm starting to lean towards internmant camps for extremest muslims.

IntrepidIsMe · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:29 pm**

Wow. If you're doing that, then there should be "secret watches" on all places of worship. Extremism in any religion can lead to violence. If anything, history has taught us that much.

However, just become someone is extreme about their religion, doesn't mean they have any intention of resorting to violence. Internment camps are much too extreme

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:32 pm**

Wrong thread.

IntrepidIsMe · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:34 pm**

Alllllllllllllllllrighty then,

Republican_Man · **Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:35 pm**