Will you still approve of W

[Jaime]

Tonight we find out who he wants to appoint!

[MC Just]

A devout Practiving Catholic has been chosen!!! He's very consernvative. Thanks be to GOD.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Judge John Roberts from Buffalo, NY. The liberals aren't too happy about that according to news reports.

[Socrates]

However, he 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.”

I guess we'll see . . .

Edited July 20, 2005 by Socrates

[IcePrincessKRS]

Edited to add: NARAL doesnt like him either, according to a couple things I've been looking up.

Apparently he also said the following:

[quote]Judge John G. Roberts.

In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), Roberts wrote:

QUOTE
    "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiæ, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Source: Wilkopedia[/quote]

Edited July 20, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jul 6 2005, 03:07 PM']If he doesn't appoint a pro-life judge he will have failed. Period.
[right][snapback]633350[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Word.

[Cam42]

John Roberts is definitely conservative.......however, the jury is still out on the abortion thing......

He holds to the "while I am personally opposed....blah, blah, blah....."

So, what are we to think. It is exactly what was expected. Is it a failure? I don't know yet. I would suspect probably not. However, hot stuff will probably jump all over this one.

Fr. Pavone likes him, if that is any indicator.
[quote]I am thrilled that the President has kept his promise by selecting a nominee who understands the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitution,” Pavone said. “The President’s selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. shows that he has a fundamental understanding of the types of judges that we need on the Supreme Court, judges who understand the difference between applying law and rewriting law. I look forward to working to ensure that Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is treated fairly and receives a timely up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.[/quote]

[jmjtina]

hmmm, well ppl on the pro-choice side of the fence certainly don't like him.

[url="http://www.prochoice.org/policy/courts/nominations/roberts_tymkovich_oppose.html"] click here[/url]

Edited July 20, 2005 by jmjtina

[Good Friday]

[b]"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.”[/b]

I told all of you this would happen back during the election, that Bush would not appoint a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. No one listened to me. And yet, I was right.

The comments he made [i]against[/i] Roe v. Wade, he made as a political appointee -- he was making them on behalf of the first Bush administration. On the other hand, the comments he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee . . . "law of the land" . . . "precedent" . . . these were his own words. He is pro-choice, and this is, frankly, what all of you deserve for reelecting President Bush and not paying attention to voices of reason.

[Niccolò]

[quote]He is pro-choice, and this is, frankly, what all of you deserve for reelecting President Bush and not paying attention to voices of reason.[/quote]

I wouldn't rush to judgement on this nominee. As a lower court justice, [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] is the settled law of the land, that's simply the sad fact. The Supreme Court is in a position to overturn settled law, and with this nominee I'm optimistic. His wife is the former Vice President of [url="http://www.feministsforlife.org/"]Feminists for Life[/url], NOW and NARAL oppose him, and he's Catholic (which unfortunately doesn't mean much, but hopefully he could join w/ Scalia and Thomas, who are both Catholic).

Whom would you have had us vote for? Kerry? I assure you that had he just nominated a new Associate Justice, we would have no doubts about his support for [i]Roe v. Wade[/i]. Bush is simply the best chance the pro-life movement has to advance its agenda at this point.

[White Knight]

I missed the announcement, who did Bush's nominee? John Roberts or someone else?

[Jaime]

Unfortunately I haven't read enough on him to make an opinion. Whether it is in our favor or not, I think the appointment was a very good move politically. He doesn't have enough of a paper trail to really know where he stands on pro life.

The judicial committee hearings will be very interesting. You know the dems are going to ask point blank questions on Roe v Wade.

As always, its time to pray kids!!

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 20 2005, 10:40 AM']Unfortunately I haven't read enough on him to make an opinion.  Whether it is in our favor or not, I think the appointment was a very good move politically.  He doesn't have enough of a paper trail to really know where he stands on pro life. 

The judicial committee hearings will be very interesting.  You know the dems are going to ask point blank questions on Roe v Wade. 

As always, its time to pray kids!!
[right][snapback]650876[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, it isn't Gonzalez now is it Himester.......

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:53 AM']Well, it isn't Gonzalez now is it Himester.......
[right][snapback]650898[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Absolutely!! And I couldn't be happier about that!

While I will be critical of W from time to time, I will also give him his due respect.

Picking a juror without a large paper trail but still qualified was a brilliant political move!

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 19 2005, 10:48 PM'] He is pro-choice, and this is, frankly, what all of you deserve for reelecting President Bush and not paying attention to voices of reason.
[right][snapback]650516[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't think he is pro-choice. He co-wrote a document which states that Roe v. Wade is wrong and unconstitutional. (Rust v. Sullivan, [url="http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1391.ZS.html"]http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1391.ZS.html[/url] ) As someone else said, though, time will tell.

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiæ, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Edited July 20, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS