OH THE IRONY
Aug. 4th, 2005 10:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annathepiperDubya, you sly dog. Here you had us believing that you don't like activist judges--and then you go and put forth as your nominee to the Supreme Court a guy who, or so the L.A. Times reports, once contributed pro bono work to gay activist causes.
Reading over the article, I see references to liberal concerns that this is hardly indicative of the man's overall views as a whole or how he would perform as a justice if he were indeed appointed to the Court--which is true, and which is something that's very important to keep in mind. But nevertheless it's quite the interesting little grain of information about him, and from what![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
solarbird is seeing on the various neoconservative sites she regularly monitors, they are Deeply Displeased. It will be interesting to see what ramifications, if any, this has on his support in Congress--and what, if anything, ol' Shrub has to say about it.
Me, I'm now anxious to see Jon Stewart and the Daily Show take this one on.
Reading over the article, I see references to liberal concerns that this is hardly indicative of the man's overall views as a whole or how he would perform as a justice if he were indeed appointed to the Court--which is true, and which is something that's very important to keep in mind. But nevertheless it's quite the interesting little grain of information about him, and from what
solarbird is seeing on the various neoconservative sites she regularly monitors, they are Deeply Displeased. It will be interesting to see what ramifications, if any, this has on his support in Congress--and what, if anything, ol' Shrub has to say about it.Me, I'm now anxious to see Jon Stewart and the Daily Show take this one on.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 06:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 06:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-05 06:50 pm (UTC)Yes, it implies, in this area he might not be an ideologue.
On the other hand, the area in which he has been most consistent is supported buy this.
He was employed by a firm which took the case as part of its pro bono work. He was assigned to it. He did a solid work.
His career has been marked by a steady deference to authority. His opinions from the bench have never gone against the White House (recall though that his tenure on the bench is only the past two years, under this White House).
In short, he never saw a request for presidential power he didn't agree with.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 05:33 pm (UTC)The points you raise are good examples of exactly what I was trying to express when I mentioned in my original post that these little revelations about Roberts are not truly indicative of how he'd perform as a justice... and that it's important to look at the overall big picture with him. Thanks for mentioning these, it does indeed help round out that big picture.
At this point I am not terribly convinced that too big a flap will be made over the pro bono work that Roberts did or the later revelation about him having done work for Playboy--though a bit of me is amused to see how much of a flap will be made, I'm still pretty sure that it ultimately won't make Bush back off supporting him. We'll have to see what happens.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 06:26 pm (UTC)Bolton is the obvious example (well, no the War in Iraq is the obvious example).
Roberts is what Bush wants (perhaps needs) on the bench of the Supreme Court.
He has been suffering reversals on matters related to the war. Roberts won't, if his past examples of legal thinking and judicial reasoning are to be believed, rule against the executive.
I would aver he agrees the President has the "inherent" power to set aside those laws with which he disagrees in the course of prosecuting a non-war.
Which is why I am against him.
TK