The Problem With Mr. Judge Roberts.

[baldguy]

Anti-privacy
Anti-religious freedom
Anti-equality

At minimum, a Supreme Court nominee should accept and agree with the precepts set forth in the Constitution, and with the interpretations generally accepted in settled case law.

If it was revealed that a believed that the Constitution still allowed slavery - no matter what the 13th Amendment said - and that America should put it into practice, he would correctly be thought of as a dangerous lunatic. Why, then do we allow serious debate from anyone who does not accept the Bill of Rights, or the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments?

How can a person still believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to women when it comes to making decisions about their own medical care? If the phrase "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers..." applies to a persons' coat pocket, then it logically MUST apply to the interior of that person's abdomen. Anyone doesn't accept this simple fact has a seriously flawed reasoning capacity.

The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof...". SEEMS FAIRLY CLEAR TO ME! The Government should stay out of religion. Period. Yet Mr. Judge Roberts has made a legal argument that explicitly promotes the contrary position - the establishment of a state religion.

"Judicial Activism" is not a plain reading of the Law as it has been settled. "Judicial Activism" IS trying to shoe-horn un-Constitutional ideas into the body of Law which is the foundation of America. Robert Bork was "borked" because he carries precisely the same baggage that Roberts does. Not that he simply holds conservative political opinions, but that he doesn't believe in the supremacy of Constitution of the United States. He doesn't believe that it is protector of our Freedom and Liberty and that it should be the final arbiter of justice in this country - NOT the narrow, but powerful and well funded partisan political interests that stand behind the throne.

America is a Republic. We have no throne - and George W Bush is not a king.

[Nye Bevan]

1. Unfortunately I think Roberts is pretty much a done deal

given the number of Dem senators who have stated they do not intend to filibuster.

Even if their minds could somehow be changed, there are two possible outcomes:

1. repubs invoke "nuclear option" and he is confirmed anyway;
2. chimp withdraws him and nominates an even more conservative candidate (Edith Jones?) A second filibuster would be tougher politically as it would make the Dems seem obstructionist and people's patience would start to wear thin. The nuclear option is also probably easier to invoke on the second attempt.

Let's just hope he is more of a Souter than a Scalia.