John Roberts labeled as “moderate.” How accurate is that? -->

[Imagevision]

Ha, moderate! Right. And Howard Dean is a commie and Judith Miller a martyr. Roberts is certainly not a moderate, he’s a right-wing activist with an agenda. He despises the rule of law, and has noted that he’d like to see the executive branch of government enjoy more power.

So much for checks and balances. Repeatedly over his career he has gone after minorities. He’s had an iron-fist approach to justice. He recommended against expanding the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because, as he wrote, the extension would “not simply extend the existing and effective Voting Rights Act, but would dramatically change it ... It’s not broken so there’s no need to fix it,” he claimed.

After his stint as Solicitor General’s he took a gig with the National Mining Association and hence his ruling against environmentalists when they challenged development practices that were impeding on an endangered species. The list goes on. Moderate Justice? My ass. Too bad the Democrats are going to rubber stamp this creep.
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/mickeyz08042005/

[Benhurst]

1. Accurate.

Roberts is a moderate right-wing crazy.

[wli]

2. Roberts is a goose-stepping Federalist Society Klansman

[GetTheRightVote]

3. Roberts is so right that there is no more room for anyone else

:kick:

[AuntPatsy]

4. When questions about his past activities are virtualy being told they

are inconsequential, a red warning flag should be raised for everyone, which is exactly what occurred...it's obvious this guy has an agenda and free thinking Americans should be concerned just what that agenda trully is.

[autorank]

5. Well a "moderate" compared to this guy...

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Roger B. Taney, Chief Jusice, US Supreme Court
60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Docket Number:
Abstract

Argued:

February 11, 1856

Decided: March 6, 1857
Facts of the Case

Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.
Question Presented

Was Dred Scott free or slave?
Conclusion

Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.

[McCamy Taylor]

6. If you believe that I have some swamp land to sell you.