John G. Roberts, Jr., ENEMY of Women, Ken Starr's Boy, and Chimp Donor...

[VOX]

Note: I first posted this over in plain-wrap GD and got no takers. Thought I'd give it a spin here. Thanks...
I did a little research on "Dudley Do-Right" John G. Roberts. Interesting history, which clearly shows that he's anti-choice. He worked for Ken "I'll get you yet, Bill Clinton" Starr back during Bush #1. Sorry, since this info is from the Lex-Nex search, I can't link to these vintage (yet timely) stories:
The New York Times
October 17, 1991, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 1; National Desk
LENGTH: 964 words
HEADLINE: Court Hears Appeal Of Ruling That Bars Abortion Protesters
BYLINE: By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Special to The New York Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Oct. 16
BODY:
A Bush Administration lawyer told the Supreme Court today that it was "wrong as a matter of law and logic" to regard opposition to abortion as the equivalent of discrimination against women.
The lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General John G. Roberts Jr., argued that demonstrators who block access to abortion clinics are not singling out women for discriminatory treatment, but rather "seek to prohibit the practice of abortion altogether."
Consequently, he said, a post-Civil War-era Federal statute known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, which prohibits conspiracies to deprive people of equal protection of the laws, does not apply to abortion clinic blockades and does not give Federal judges the authority to issue injunctions against the demonstrators.
<snip>
- - - - -
The Washington Post
September 8, 1990, Saturday, Final Edition
SECTION: FIRST SECTION; PAGE A8
LENGTH: 657 words
HEADLINE: Justices Again Asked to Reject Roe v. Wade
BYLINE: Ruth Marcus, Washington Post Staff Writer
BODY:
The Bush administration urged the Supreme Court yesterday to use a case involving federal funding of family-planning clinics to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling establishing a constitutional right to abortion.
In a brief, Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr astonished abortion rights advocates, who said they had not anticipated that the administration would attempt to use the case as a vehicle for persuading the court to overrule Roe.
The case, Rust v. Sullivan, concerns federal regulations prohibiting federally funded family-planning clinics from providing information about abortion to patients and allowing them, if patients inquire, to say only that abortion is "not an appropriate method of family planning."
<snip>
The administration's argument delighted abortion opponents. The National Right to Life Committee said Bush's "firm, principled defense of unborn babies is winning him the unshakable loyalty of hundreds of thousands of pro-life political activists."
Starr was traveling yesterday. His deputy, John G. Roberts Jr., said, "We'll let the brief speak for itself, and we'll let the court reach its own conclusions."
The brief said 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."
- - - - -
And, as the cherry on the cake, Roberts, Jr.is a Chimp donor --
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=BET...
$1,000 to George W. Bush 8/03/2000
There are also several donations to various right-wing senatorial candidates.
- - - - -
Do NOT let this guy just walk into SCOTUS without a scrap. Can you say, "Legislate from the bench?" Roberts is BFEE through and through. I cannot believe that some folks here on DU are saying in effect, let them have this putz. If allowed, this dude will be on the SCOTUS for 40+ years!!! :nuke:

[madeline_con]

1. On Roe v Wade...

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."**

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/roberts.html


Note: I just read today that the main thrust of RvW was a woman's right to privacy... ???

[still_one]

3. it is between a woman and her doctor

I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT into anyone's medical records, including limbaughs, or involved in shivo like decisions

[madeline_con]

6. That's mypoint...

the way I undrstood the decision, it was based on a privacy issue. Th RW "Christians" want to make it about "morality", like they've got a handle on THAT!

[still_one]

12. then we will win in the long term

if they believe that they can legislate morality, they will see just how the American public feels about that. Remember prohibition?

[sandnsea]

9. It sounds more like liberty to me

I had always thought privacy too, but the way I read Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I don't think so. 14th Amendment
"..no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

b) Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such "liberty." Rather, the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized society. The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 , family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , and contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 . Roe's central holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents. Pp. 846-853.

e) The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833

[still_one]

2. many of the same people said the same thing about bolton

the media said it was a done deal. If it wasn't for those who didn't give up bolton would have had carte blanche

It shows that it can be done

[DELUSIONAL]

4. KICK

We can't let the Democratic senators just roll over -- or ah . . bend over and let the GOPigs have their way yet again.

There is no way in hell that one of Starr's bastards should ever ever ever be rewarded.

[bliss_eternal]

5. Absolutely--perfect choice of words--

NO WAY IN HELL!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[sandnsea]

11. Why do you assume they are?

So far they've all expressed serious concern about Roberts and promised a rigorous review. That's Senate speak for, we're going to put him through the ringer. Collins, Snowe, and Chaffee won't be pushovers, not to mention there are alot of Republican women who are concerned about abortion too.

I don't know why people expect elected officials to release statements, "I'm gonna' kick his bony ass so hard he'll wish he'd never left the farm."

Of course, not much we can do about Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor and Nelson. Shouldn't blame all Dems because of our southern Dem friends.

[ngGale]

7. I researched him to and you are dead right ...

as always w chose the most horrid person he could fine. A Bush 'yes' man. He is a no way in hell - in fact he would be hell for about 35 + years.

[sandnsea]

8. He's a corporate whore lobbyist

http://courtinginfluence.net/nominee.php?nominee_id=55

Be sure and scroll down to page 2,
"Former Energy Industry Lobbyists Among Nominees"

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. They say the eyes are the windows of the soul

and this dude's got really scary eyes.

[gkhouston]

13. LOL, yes he does

I was wondering if he has Grave's disease... the eyes have that slighly protruding quality that is kinda creepy.