The debate over Roberts is over: Worst SC nominee in a generation

[geek tragedy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201913_pf.html

<snip>The new documents disclosed by the archive that reflect Roberts' skeptical views regarding a "fundamental" right to privacy include a lengthy article on judicial restraint that he apparently drafted for publication in a journal of the American Bar Association under the name of then-Attorney General William French Smith, his boss.

The article approvingly quoted from a dissenting opinion by Justice Hugo Black in a 1965 court decision, in which the majority held that a Connecticut law forbidding the use of contraceptives was unconstitutional. Black's opinion, as cited in the draft, complained that the court had used "a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional." The draft article said that "the broad range of rights which are now alleged to be 'fundamental' by litigants, with only the most tenuous connection the to Constitution, bears ample witness to the dangers of this doctrine."

The draft released from Roberts's files at the archive does not have his name on it, but a memo to Roberts from Bruce Fein, who then worked in the Justice Department, offers suggested changes on "your draft." Fein said in an interview yesterday that "my judgment is yes, that John wrote it."

A second memo, sent by Roberts to the attorney general on Dec. 11, 1981, summarized a lecture six years earlier by then- Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold at Washington and Lee University, which touched on the same theme. Griswold's lecture, Roberts said, "devotes a section to the so-called 'right to privacy,' arguing as we have that such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution. He specifically criticizes Roe v. Wade."

The words "so-called" do not appear in Griswold's lecture. But Roberts drafted a letter to Griswold, signed by Smith, saying he was cheered that Griswold made "many of the same points" that the administration had about these matters.
<snip>

John Roberts wants to allow the state to regulate EVERY aspect of your life.

He would allow the state to tell married couples that they can't use contraception.

He also doesn't believe in an independent judiciary--he supports the constitutionality of Congress stripping the court of jurisdiction over any and all constitutional matters--including the liberty of citizens.


ANY Democrat voting for him should face a primary challenge. No exceptions. Any Dems voting for him should be kicked out of the caucus. This is a deal-breaker--if you don't believe in personal freedom, get the hell out!


I think he should be fillibustered--it is literally not possible for Bush to find someone worse than this fascist.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. No Democrat or moderate Republican

should vote for him (if these are indeed his positions on privacy). this should be thoroughly explored during the hearings and if he refuses to answer, that is also reason to vote 'no'.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

3. Interesting response.

Do Freepers understand where the "so-called right to privacy" came from?

It wasn't Roe. It was Griswold, which Roberts thinks was wrongly decided.


Before 1965, even married couples in Connecticut couldn't legally use contraception. It was only because of the Supreme Court decision that they were allowed to--because the SCOTUS found an inherent right to privacy.

John Roberts wants to take that right away from every single human being in the country.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

16. I don't care what he personally wants. It's how he will vote that matters

and this guy WILL vote to take away the right to privacy from us all.

In conservative mythology, protecting liberty is judicial activism and taking it away is judicial restraint.

That's pig crap.

Roberts' philosophy is that we only have those freedoms that the government grants us. Not coincidentally, that's how North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba all view it.

It's an inherently fascist, totalitarian view of the relationship between citizen and state.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

19. Ehem. Excuse me but did you watch the 'make law' desires in Schiavo

The wingnuts were frothing at the mouth trying to get judges to remove a husband from making decisions about his wife...it is a clearly written decision in Florida that it is the husband who gets to make the decisions. Don't care what the husband did or didn't do in his private life, the bottom line: he was still the husband. Case closed...except for the fundies.

As far as the Federal Gov't getting involved in the case, no true conservative Republican of the non-efungelical breed would EVER support that nonsense.

[Kalish]

21. Go look at the Ninth Amendment

all rights, even those not elucidated in the Constitition are RESERVED TO THE PEOPLE.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

31. If he thinks there's no right to privacy, that means he will vote to take

it away when the issue comes before him.

It's very simple:

If you think Griswold was correctly decided, you think that there is an inherent sphere of privacy upon which the government can't intrude without compelling reasons and only as a last resort.

If you think Griswold was wrongly decided, you think the government can regulate each and every aspect of a person's life just because it wants to.

Roberts thinks that Griswold was wrongly decided.

[Kalish]

32. His problem seems to be with a right to privacy in general

not just Griswald.

I guarantee you, we lose that right to privacy, it opens all kinds of real bad doors.

The founders put in the Ninth because they were worried that people in the future would look at the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and say 'these are all the rights'.

Nope all other rights are reserved to the people. There is no clause in the Constitution expressly disavowing a right to privacy, therefore it is reserved to the people.

Roberts and his ilk hate the very concept of a right to privacy. They hate the robutst individualism that exists in our modern society. They are slowly trying to tear it all down.

[Kalish]

33. damn it

couldn't we have allowed them to stick around a little bit longer? They were at least arguing rationally.

[geek tragedy]

35. Not when they argue that privatizing social security and abolishing

the estate tax are violations of personal privacy.

[Kalish]

38. true

that.

[Kalish]

29. Our founders were worried about even including a bill of rights

because they felt that idiots in the future would look and say 'oh those are all the rights' - so they put in the Ninth Amendment, reserving ALL OTHER RIGHTS to the people.

[1monster]

10. So, if it is all just about abortion, then why are the same people who

support Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court also supporting making it more and more difficult for women to get contraception?

Or have you missed the news articles of pharmacists refusing to fill LEGAL doctor's prescriptions for birth control pills? And of some doctors tellling their patients that they no longer believed in birth control pills and thus were cutting their patients off?

Even in the House just last week there were Republican representatives excoriating a witness for believing that she had a right to have pharmacists fill birth control prescriptions?

It isn't all about abortion. It isn't all about contraception. But those two issues act as a bellweather on where a candidate stands on many issues.

The issues also concern privacy regarding personal medical history (what can possibly be more private and unambiguously the property of anyone than what goes on in their own bodies), life style (if it isn't hurting anyone, then whose business it what another's life style is), property ownership (such as the recent SC ruling regarding condemnation of personal property for the benefit of PRIVATE development), and so on.

Those who do not believe that we as a people have an inherent and inalienable right to privacy are more about controling others than they are about what the Constitution does or does not say.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

18. Oh dear.

It was nice knowing you.

Say hello to our fellow Americans in Freeperville.

[PA Democrat]

20. However did you guess?

Was it the spelling? :evilgrin:

[geek tragedy]

22. The "liberals want to use the courts" plus the wingnut abortion language

plus the "what about Rush's privacy rights" whine.

I actually suspected after post #1, but I thought I'd offer the benefit of the doubt.

[PA Democrat]

27. Funny how conservatives bash the ACLU as a radical left-wing

organization, but then conveniently forget how the ACLU fought for Rush's right to privacy.

[geek tragedy]

39. They argue from positions and talking points, not principle. eom

[1monster]

34. Oh, I missed that one! I was going to check it out after another one and

when I came back, it was GONE.

Someone pm me what he/she said. Afterall, it was in reply to my post.

[geek tragedy]

36. "Why weren't you people concerned about Rush Limbaugh's privacy?"

Ding dong, Freeper dead.

[1monster]

42. Thanks.

And if the deleted poster is still reading: Rush Limbaugh was certainly making enough noise about it on his own.

And he had been caught illegally possessing/using controled prescription drugs. And extremely high volumes of them at that.

I'm not well informed on Rush's case, but if I understand the problem, his medical records were subpoena by the State's Attorneys investigating illegal drug use.

Any time a subpoena is issued, the person on whom the subpoena is served has the right to fight in court to have the subpoena quashed.

I have not followed Limbaugh's legal woes and do not even know whether or not he was able to have the subpoena quashed.

And I am not sure that this is a privacy issue or not. In criminal investigations, quite often that which we want to keep private comes out into the open. I'm sure that someone who embezzeled $$$$$ from an employer or charity or whatever, would want to keep his/her banking records private too. But I don't think a demand for privacy would hold up under those circumstances either.

[Kalish]

24. The ACLU filed a brief in favor of Rush and his 'privacy rights'

although the repugnant sack of shit has spent his entire life trying to destroy privacy rights.

[Richard Steele]

14. Welcome, enjoy, etc........(yawn)

[annabanana]

40. "are you serious"

absolutely serious...
If you aren't old enough to remember when "the pill" was invented, listen to your mom or older sisters or aunts..

The Catholic Church was dead against the introduction of "the pill".. It would signal the "downfall of civilization as we know it" and was an intrument of the devil..

If they can roll this puppy back, believe it, they will

[1monster]

4. Amendment IX

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

As a member of the people, I retain my right to privacy. The Constitution does not enumerate it, but neither does it forbid it. Ergo, by Amendment IX, WE the PEOPLE retain the right to PRIVACY.

edit: a couple of typos

[geek tragedy]

5. Republicans don't believe in the 9th Amendment.

Rethug goons like Roberts want to put the constitution through the shredder--unless it serves the RNC platform, of course.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

6. MANY do....those that don't, are extremists

Don't let them off so easy with the argument that ALL Republicans don't support a right to privacy. Paint the extremists for what they are including, but not limited to; neocons, theocrats and batshitcrazy.:crazy:

[geek tragedy]

7. The extremists ARE the Republican party. It's like saying that not

all members of Mussolini's fascist party supported dictatorship.

Bullshit. If a person believes in personal freedom, they don't support the Republicans. Voting Republican is objectively an act of repudiating personal freedom and the constitution.

There are no good Republicans and bad Republicans. Only bad Republicans.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

11. Voting Republican these days, I agree....

But, there are many Republicans for Kerry who support the Democrats in reversing the theocratic, neocon agenda and VOTE (D). Many have given up on the Republican party and switched to Dem, Independent or Libertarian but others are really pissed off and want their party back. In the meantime, they will all vote Dem in order to stop the insanity.

[geek tragedy]

12. Their party is gone for good. The James Dobson crowd owns the

Republican party.

You're either with us, or you're with James Dobson.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

13. Agree. The anti-science/anti-medicine flat earthers are in control.

and they can have it.

I don't care to fight with the Christie Todd Whitman crowd (It's My Party Too).

My attitude: Since they only care to pander to the efungelical "base", let's see how many f*cking elections they can win WITHOUT the liberal/moderate Rockefeller Republicans.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

25. Praying in public school isn't a privacy issue.

Neither are any other of the Republican talking points you just rattled off.

As I said before, extend my greetings to the other Freepers after you've been banned.

[Kalish]

26. you CAN do all those things

every last one of them you can do.

But if you want to be able to pay for all your expensive wars there has to be taxes. How far into debt do you want our country to go?

As far as I'm concerned those fuckers who support this war should be paying MORE TAXES VOLUNTARILY as our country is being bled red because of it.

[geek tragedy]

28. Hey, you're talking to a multi-millionaire.

Because only multi-millionaires need to worry about the federal estate tax.

Well, stupid idiot rightwing trolls do as well, but only because they're pig ignorant sheep.

[rinsd]

41. Neither do Democrats....

...from the time of FDR, the 9th & 10th has been pissed on regularly by both parties.

[geek tragedy]

46. True, but Democrats don't believe that our rights are limited to

what the government says they are.

[rinsd]

47. Agreed (nt)

[theboss]

8. Does no one remember Bork?

Bork was openly a facist. He wrote convincingly and beautifully about it.

I'm sorry, but Bork was one of the - if not THE - most alarming Supreme Court nominee in history. Arguing that Roberts - who has no record to speak of - is worse is laughable.

[geek tragedy]

9. How is Roberts different?

Wants to abolish the right to privacy: Check.

Doesn't believe in an independent judiciary: Check.

Extremely hostile to civil rights: Check.

Roberts smiles pretty for the camera, but he's every bit as rightwing as Bork.

[dchill]

37. It's a done deal.

He was nominated by George W. Bush. No matter that he's a right-wing zealot Constitution abuser who hates individual rights. He could have been a three-legged rabid Doberman. George W. Bush gets what he wants. Get it? Most of our wonderful Senatorial Democrats get it...

[Nothing Without Hope]

43. Here's the Alliance For Justice 18 page report and an LA Times editorial

It's clear that Roberts is no friend to personal or human rights.

The Alliance For Justice report on Roberts:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf

The LA Times editorial;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1945586
Thread title: LAT op/ed: Roberts would undermine settled law on Roe, Rights, Religion

[LittleClarkie]

44. I don't think many share your views

I can't imagine he's worse than Scalia or Thomas, frankly.

And I don't care what he believes as long as he is not an activist. If what he has been saying about judicial restraint has validity, I don't think he is an activist.

Frankly I don't expect a filibuster. Liberals aren't angry enough about the guy. And Conservatives I know aren't happy about that fact. They wanted someone who would make that little vein in our foreheads stick out. It ain't happening.

[geek tragedy]

45. He's worse than Scalia, who was right on the detainee issue.

Don't fall for the 'activist' rhetoric from the rightwing.

He is an activist--he would overturn Roe, Griswold, and would allow the Congress to forbid the federal courts from hearing constitutional claims concerning school desegregation.

Roberts never met a human or civil right he thought the courts should enforce. He believes that we only have those rights the government gives us.

[rateyes]

48. If these are his positions on privacy, and you make a good

argument that they are...then I have to agree with you. So worried am I about our personal liberty and the right to privacy, that I think the Democrats ought to draft a proposed Constitutional amendment spelling out that right, and that it not be abridged---something that would take the so-called Patriot Act and flush it down the toilet---and, preserve our civil liberties.

Patrick Henry would not have made a very good Republican---"Give me liberty, or give me death," was his cry...the Republicans want to take away our liberty to live as we please (as long as it doesn't trample on anyone else's liberty)...so they can force us to live under their control.