Prove He's Not Another Scalia, Don't Just Say It

[realFedUp]

(the LA Times online has a good section called
CourtBriefs...differing opinions, sites on
Roberts. This is one opinion which I agree with)

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/weblog/oped/archives/2005/07/prove_hes_not_a.html#more

July 20, 2005
Prove He's Not Another Scalia, Don't Just Say It
Erwin Chemerinsky

(is Alston & Bird professor of law and political science professor at Duke University.)

John Roberts is being presented as something of a stealth candidate because there is seemingly so little of a paper trail concerning his views on key issues that are likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. Quite the contrary, every available indication of his record is enormously troubling for those who care about issues such as civil liberties and civil rights. Indeed, I challenge his supporters to show anything in his record to indicate that he will not be a far-right Justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

For example, on the abortion issue, as an attorney at the United States Department of Justice, Roberts signed or wrote several briefs, and argued key cases, urging restriction of abortion rights. There is nothing to indicate that these are not his views on abortion or to suggest that he will not be a vote to limit reproductive choice. Imagine in the 1950s a nominee who had consistently written briefs urging the overruling or limiting of Brown v. Board of Education. The nominee should have been rejected by the Senate unless he or she could show that the written record was not an accurate reflection of the person's views. That is exactly how the Senate should treat John Roberts.

Thus, it is essential that Roberts explain his personal views on key issues, ranging from how the Constitution should be interpreted to specific matters such as abortion rights, affirmative action, and separation of church and state. Without answers to these questions, Senate Democrats should refuse to confirm him, including through a filibuster.

Roberts has the potential to change the law in key areas such as reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, and affirmative action where Justice O'Connor had been the fifth vote for the majority. Senate Democrats must insist that they will filibuster Roberts unless they are convinced that he is not as far to the right as everything in his record suggests.

[JDPriestly]

1. Roberts and his wife look like

up-tight, repressed, obedient conservatives motivated primarily by fear. Roberts is not a creative guy, too intellectually timid and lazy to figure out his own point of view. He's the kind that swallows a dogma whole, every last drop of it, and then oozes little bits of it out of all the orifices of his body fearfully, cautiously, but oh so neatly and "appropriately" so as to make himself feel very secure. She is the "church lady" (Remember Saturday Night Live long ago) incarnate. Note that the Roberts' son acted quite out of control while at the White House. That is because he has no guidance and no feeling of being secure because his parents are so out of touch with themselves. Their relationship with their son is not authentic and he seems quite confused. I know he is young, but my children never, never acted like that. They were far more confident very early on. Roberts and his wife are going to have problems with that child. Before they say "No" to their son, the Roberts have to check with all the dogma and rules they have ingested to see whether the "No" is the right thing to do according to all those ingested rules. Roberts and his wife do not lead authentic lives. They have never asked themselves how they really feel and think about things. They ask instead ask what their church or political party or society says they should think and feel. The Roberts need to do some primal therapy or something, the both of them. Their feelings aren't hooked up to their thoughts. Remember the old Stones line, "There's a part that's not screwed on." That's the Roberts.

Scalia is a kind of rough and tumble pseudo-intellectual who is high on trying to be different in order to prove how much more brilliant he is than anyone else. Misguided, lacking in compassion and stupid as he is, he has some originality and personality. He is fundamentally too dishonest with himself to even approach authenticity, but at least he is aware enough of his own phoniness to try to be different. Scalia doesn't really want to persuade others. That would ruin his game because then he wouldn't stand out and get so much attention. He wants to leave a record, which he actually believes will lead future scholars and lawyers to see him as a voice of wisdom in a wilderness of folly. Scalia is a total narcissist and nut who wants to be as different as he can be. He likes to dazzle people into agreeing with him. He can be effective at moments, but in the end people either feel offended and dislike him or ignore him in embarrassment. Roberts wants to be liked, offers the easy solution to everything -- follow the rules -- and is actually far more likely to sway the opinions of others on the court. He is more dangerous. But there is virtually nothing we can do about Roberts unless he has some skeleton in the closet, which he may well have. Bush has a majority in the Senate and can pretty much pick and choose. We have to get Senate seats for 2006 so that we can at least have some say in future appointments to the court.

[rinsd]

2. Making shit up...not just for freepers anymore....(nt)

[JDPriestly]

3. I forgot to mention.

Roberts was a Pepto-Bismol regular (or irregular) in school. This confirms my suspicion about his emotional dietary habits. He ingests the ideas and judgments of others in his stomach not in his brain.

[Zacpres]

4. You smoking something?

Whether Roberts will make a good justice remains to be seen but your rant is really over the top.
Intellectually lazy? I believe he was near the top of his class at Harvard.
Uptight and repressed? This guy is a very personable and likeable fellow and even dems who know him admit this.
How in hell would you kow that Roberts and his wife don't have an "authentic" relationship with their son/kids or have a good relationship with each other?
I'm glad that your kids never act up. I guess in your case the ritalen is working.
Yes question his previous court rulings or working past, that is legit territory. But attacking his wife and kids as far as I'm concerned is off limits.
After reading your garbage I would rather have someone like roberts for a neighbor than an obviously judgemental fool like you.