Lexis

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I'm going to bed soon but I expect lots if insightful comment and debate about who he nominates when I check in tomorrow!

Miss_Priss

Just saw the choice (John Roberts) and I'm confused. No one seems to know a lot about this guy. Of course Republicans are spouting that he's the best thing since sliced bread but I want to know where he stands on ISSUES.

Right now I'm justvery confused, and the fact that Bush chose him almost predisposes me to be against him, but I really am going to try to wait to pass judgement until I find out more about him. Though I really would have preferred a female...it just feels wrong in this day and age to have one woman judging on issues that my deal primarily with women.

RedRockSedona

Basically if you love our country and believe in her and think everybody deserves the same opportunities this guy is NOT what you should have in mind as a nominee.

People for the American Way write this:

but here are a couple PDF links about him just in case you still need more convincing that John Roberts is a very bad choice and one who will divide our country even more



http://www.independentjudiciary.com/...rts_Report.pdf

http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf

Sparrowhawk

Bah. It hardly matters. As I understand it, Congress will not be able to confirm anyone nominated at this time because it is going out of session. It's just a ploy to take the focus off of Karl Rove's misdeeds. He just wants someone controversial.

CourtneyS416

I, for one, am happy with Bush's nominee. I hope that he will be confirmed without a big hoopla.

TokyoNiGHTS

That's what Bush has been doing. He does stuff that divides the country even more than it is, even though he said that he wanted to be a uniter and not a divider. Almost every big move he's made has done nothing but divide this country even more.

There's so much anger now over the 2 parties and most of the reasons for it lead from his decisions.

Miss_Priss

Crap. I've been watching the news (conservative news no less ARG) and all it keeps saying is that if he gets a chance he'll overturn Roe v. Wade if he got the chance, but that no one would be able to prove that so he'll get passed probably.

Oh, god, I do not want this man in office. Plus the fact that he's young and he'll be there for YEARS. It's obvious what bush is trying to do. I do not want this court to be conservative...if it dies we are so screwed. Few seem to realize just how much this will change the united states and not just for womens issues. If the Surpreme court leans to the right it will change American Policies for decades.

UnsilentMajorty

I agree that this nomination is more theatrics and distraction to take the heat off Rove.

My view is that they won't touch Roe vs. Wade because it would be political suicide. Bush and the Evangelical biggots can try and pressure him... But what is working in everyone's favor is the Republican Party isn't as popular or well-liked as they think (and keep saying) they are thanks to never ending Iraq, the economy and countless other issues...

And they do know this (behind closed doors) and have to keep future presidencies in mind when considering hot-button issues like Abortion because you swing too far right (just as if you go to far left) and people WILL get sick of it and vote the other way.

So, I think Abortion is safe for the most part and I know Same-Sex Marriage isn't even a real topic/debate and won't be for another five, to ten years in my opinion to where the country may have swung back to the other side (Liberal/Left) and things may be different then.

However, I am worried about business law and environmental law (rulings) as I know he'll rule in favor of big corporations and further destroy the economy, the shriking middle-class and the enviroment if he gets on the bench.

WalkingOnSunshine

Ahh, so let me see if you think this guy might be alright for the Supreme Court then you don't love the country or believe in it? Nice blanketed statement. Please, you can support him & love the country, too. But wait, isn't the Left always claiming that they are accused of not loving America?

I didn't know much about this guy until it was annouced, but he seems decent and straightforwarded. He has an amazing history for only being 50 years old.

In regards to Roe v. Wade - it is not going to be overturned anytime soon. The only reason I can think that Pro-Choice groups are jumping the gun this morning is because of a brief he wrote that stated: "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

However, during his 2003 confirmation hearings Roberts said that he would be guided by legal precedent. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." (of Roe v. Wade)

I don't think anyone on the Right believes that it is going to be an easy confirmation hearings. A lot of money is going to be spent on both sides trying to get this guy in or out. I just hope that special interests do not control the length of these hearings or what is said. Roberts will be confirmed though. I don't expect it to take that long either again if special interest groups are limited. When Roberts was nominated to the Court of Appeals he was unanimously confirmed. I think this guy might just surprised the Left.

Miss_Priss

What does this guy care if it's "political suicide" he is going to be in office until he dies. Thats what scares me. The surpreme court are the most powerful people in the system and if they become of a mind to make whatever decision they want, they can change America as we know it.

RedRockSedona

>>>I didn't know much about this guy


If you can blindly defend this candidate without any knowledge of who this man really is you deserve him


If you support this nomination you support

Him providing completely partisan counsel to Gov. Jeb Bush while he worked in 2000 to prevent a Democratic end-run that would have otherwise given the election to Al Gore

If you support this nomination you support

The arrest of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single French fry on the Metro during a “zero tolerance” crackdown by transit police on Metro riders violating the subway’s rules against eating and drinking. The child was searched, handcuffed, her shoelaces were removed, 12-year-old girl was taken away in a windowless police vehicle, fingerprinted, and held for three hours until she was released into her mother’s custody. The mother brought a civil rights action on behalf of her daughter under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming that her daughter’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. In particular, the mother claimed that the child’s equal protection rights had been violated because, under then-D.C. law, adults in the same situation would only have been given a citation, while juveniles had to be arrested.

Judge Roberts’s opinion affirmed the district court’s ruling against the mother. In rejecting the equal protection claim, Roberts held that the law requiring harsher treatment of juveniles was rationally related to “the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.” 386 F.3d at 1156. According to Roberts, juveniles given citations might give the police “an entirely fanciful [name] or, better yet, the name of the miscreant who pushed them on the playground that morning,” and their parents would then never know about their transgression.

(Were talking about eating a French Fry)

If you support this nomination you support

Public school students being subjected to religious coercion while attending their own graduation ceremonies.

If you support this nomination

Then you must hate the Endangered Species Act
love the idea of hazardous air pollutants coming from copper smelters.
Must think that safeguards in the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act are unconstitutional

If you support this nomination

Then you are against the 4th Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures.

And then If you support this nomination

you must really think it is OK to kidnap suspects and foreigners hold them as prisoners of war (but call them enemy combatants so we can turn a blind eye to torture or when we conveniently ship them to countries who have even more sadistic forms of torture) hold them indefinitely without charge, without a bases for this incarceration, deny them any knowledge of why they have been incarcerated and decline them any protection of the International Human Rights Treaty and The Geneva Treaty and believe the US is absolved of any responsibility to said prisoners thus condoning the ill treatment of them including torture forced sodomy, rape and murder.

Yes, I will say it again if you love our country and believe in her and think everybody deserves the same opportunities this guy is NOT what you should have in mind as a nominee.

WalkingOnSunshine

I did say that, but following that I said also until it was announced. After Bush announced his nomination, I read many articles describing Roberts, his career and life.

So, I am not just "blindly defending this candidate without any knowledge". I did the research and *shock* I just happen to think he isn't the worst person around.

In the Democratic mind that election would have gone to Al Gore no matter. However, there are numerous reasons why the 2000 vote did not go to Gore and it isn't, because of Jeb and in no way because of Roberts' advice. I believe it is important to note that Roberts's name did not appear on any briefs during the Florida presidential recount. So, while he may have given advice to a friend it wasn't documented on the record.

Back to the 2000 election which should have been "President's Gore's": One such way a Gore victory could have happened would have involved a certain kind of recount which Gore never requested. That kind of recount as well would have been in violation of Florida Law. That recount theory would have meant re-assignging votes which are plainly marked for one candidate, Buchanan, to then Gore. Florida law does not have any provisions, of course, to assume or guess who a voter really meant to vote for and thus reassign the vote.

As noted in the newspapers following the 2000 election debacle they stated:

----------------
I realize we are talking about a single French Fry, but eating anything at all was not allowed on the Metro system.
"In the 2000 incident, Metro Transit Police officers were posted at the Tenleytown-AU Station on the Red Line as part of a week-long operation to catch students snacking and breaking other Metro rules. The station, near Deal Junior High School, which Ansche attended, was the source of transit riders' complaints about teenage rowdiness."
I quoted this, from an article about the case, the Police were looking for students breaking the rules by eating on the system. As well, the police had been notified and were alerted to problems being reported on the same system/route that little girl had been taking.

The court ruling was unanimous last October in Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). I bolded the unanimous part, because I am not sure if you just forgot to mention that it wasn't just Roberts whom agreed that this girl's rights had not been violated.

Roberts was the one whom wrote the opinion on behalf of the other two judges as well. Stating that:
Noticed how he started off his opinion stating that no one was happy about the events that led to this. He acknowledged what the little girl went through, but he made it clear that the judges' decision was based on whether her 4th & 5th Constitutional Rights had been violated and not about the Metro's policies enforcement on rules.

As well, I thought this needed to be mentioned since the Metro's rules about minors had been brought up. At the time of the case, police said that D.C. law required that minors caught eating on Metro or in stations be taken into custody. Since then, Metro has modified its policy to permit written warnings and a warning to the juvenile's parents.

I assume you are referencing the Lee v. Weisman (1992) case that went to the Supreme Court about the subject of prayer at public school ceremonies? Robert E. Lee, served as the principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School, when he invited a rabbi to the graduation for Deborah Weisman & her class. Mr. Lee gave the rabbi a pamphlet containing guidelines for the composition of public prayers at civic ceremonies, and advised him that the prayers should be nonsectarian.

At this school, it had been the practice for numerous years that elected clergy officials were invited to speak. "For years" this had been the practice, but Deborah and her dad objected to this and that is when it was taken to court. Hmm, I suppose the classes before maybe didn't mind or if they did they choose maybe not to listen? Who knows? However, it was ruled in favor of them since it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

*sigh* I suppose you must "hate the Endangered Species Act" is meant to reference the Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton case? In which by Roberts' dissent vote, along with Judge Sentelle's vote, meaning a vote to rehear the case equates to a hate for the Endangered Species? At the end of his opinion about the case, Roberts said : the rehearing would allow the court to "consider alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent with Supreme Court precedent."

In regards to the french fry case, again?

I will comment on this later.

Oh that's fine, but then don't claim the Left's abused and overused saying of being called "anti-american" or not patriotic enough. Throw your insults about how if you support Roberts then you don't love or believe in America. But, then don't be offended when the same insults are thrown your way. I just hope the Right does not resort to such measures.

RedRockSedona

QUOTE=WalkingOnSunshine



>>>After Bush announced his nomination, I read many articles describing Roberts, his career and life.

Sure you did I am sure they were a completely honest unbiased look both pro and con at this man’s deeds. Yeah, right.
If a candidate can’t stand by the compilation of his/her worst deeds they shouldn’t stand

>>>In the Democratic mind that election would have gone to Al Gore no matter.

No every physical sense of reality and fairness Gore won even without the reassignment of the Buchanan votes. Ipso facto

However you missed the point entirely. It is not that Bush won and he should not have it is that Roberts was incredibly partisan and he continued this incredible partisanship while he ruled against requiring Dick Cheney's energy task force to release its records to the public. In both cases he was willing to place his partisanship ahead of law.

>>>I realize we are talking about a single French Fry, but eating anything at all was not allowed on the Metro system.

You have missed the point here again

The fact that D.C. law favors adults. Adults in the same situation are given a citation, while juveniles had to be arrested is where I have the most problem with Roberts. His requiring that harsher treatment of juveniles was rationally related to “the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts.” No matter how you look at it is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

Apparently Metro did to when it modified its policy to permit written warnings and a warning to the juvenile's parents

But too late for the child who now has a record. Yes, it is probably that this record would eventually be removed but consider what her life will be like before then. School placement and employment are only two examples of where her life is affected all over a French fry and a policy that was unconstitutional.

>>>how does "vote to rehear the case equates to a hate for the Endangered Species?"

It does when an alternative plan was already provided for the company as a work around that would have not impacted the toad but what Roberts wanted to do was potentially reverse the district court Circuit precedent upholding congressional authority under the Endangered Species Act.

It is contempt for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
It is contempt for the Endangered Species act
And it is contempt for congressional authority

>>>In regards to the french fry case, again?

No, I am referring to a case where he sided with police officials who wanted to be able to stop any vehicle and perform search this car’s interior without probable cause. he sided with the cops and against the 4th amendment


Let’s see he doesn’t think the 1st amendment applies in Public Schools where he argued for the expansion of religion in public schools, where he co-authored a brief in support of Family Planning programs which receive federal aid cannot mention or offer counsel on abortion, while at the same time protesters are only exhibiting their free speech while they block entrances to Woman’s Health Clinics because they among the many things they provide abortions.

He is agaisnt the 4th amendment because he believes law enforcement doesn’t need probable cause.

He is against the 5th amendment because he thinks that it just peachy to lock up folks indefinitely without charging them

And he is against the 9th & 14th amendments because he thinks it is OK to have adults in the same situation are given a citation, while juveniles had to be arrested.

Also he is against the 14th 15th & 19th amendments
When he was against a congressional effort to enable minorities to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

What a guy! (sarcasm)

>>>Throw your insults about how if you support Roberts then you don't love or believe in America.

I have notice twice now you have left off this part "and think everybody deserves the same opportunities" from my quote...perhaps you think not everybody deserves the same opportunities?

>>>But, then don't be offended when the same insults are thrown your way.

>>>I just hope the Right does not resort to such measures.

You are kidding right?

I have been called un-American by the right for sticking up for the rights of anybody to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I have been called anti-American and even treasonous by the right for being against an illegal war ~started on false pretense, fortified with false documents, bolstered up with “fixed” intelligence and infused with propaganda to end all propaganda machines.

And I have big name right-winger calling me everything from fem-Nazi to yes anti-American

But the thing is I bet none of them have actually read the constitution. Read the words and actually know what it means when the preamble reads WE THE PEOPLE

Thing is I have so I have a big problem supporting a man who has shown nothing but contempt for that document to then hold a the highest court position. He simply wont do.

UnsilentMajorty

Here is what is going on in this country (and I will relate it to John Robert's nomination):

The Republicans and Hard Right keep using 9/11, as justification for taking away our civil liberties, weakening the environment and bolstering big business to keep everyone... Their definition of "everyone" is mostly those who are wealthy, White and evangelical... Quote-un-quote safe from terrorism... Which is more like safe from poverty to be blunt.

John Roberts is no exeception (look at the evidence RedRockSedona provided and do your own research as well) and this is what irks me most not just about his nomination, but what the Right keeps doing: Exploiting 9/11.

They use 9/11 as the alpha and omega for justifing everything, good or bad, and treat this one event like the beginning of the world (for the U.S.) and the end of the world if people question policies and decisions that are mostly rooted in this one event (based on fear) like patriotism, being with them or against them, etc, etc.

Guess what?

What happened on 9/11 was terrible... But that kind of thing happens all over the world on a daily basis (South America; Africa; Phillipines to name a few) and it was just the fact America finally got a taste of what we do to other countries on a daily basis that day. Didn't taste too good, did it? However, the worst part is this spurred the "freedom at all costs" bandwagon a lot of people jumped on... Including John Roberts... Because they'd never experienced something like 9/11 before and as a result of paranoia, fear and manipulation by the Right this movement ironcally takes away a lot of citizen's freedoms.

Also, WalkingOnSunshine is probably looking at this nomination from a "How will or won't this effect me (her)?" point of view and that is fine. This is what most people do. However, let's go through this:

1) >>>I realize we are talking about a single French Fry, but eating anything at all was not allowed on the Metro system.

Yes, but it wouldn't matter to you since you are an adult (24?). Therefore, you'd just get a citation and a "please don't do that again" instead of being arrested and something put on your permanent record...

Which, like RedRock said, affects someone's future job prospects as well educational prospects as well (grants; enrollment)...

But that doesn't effect you and probably never will. So, what does it matter?

2) >>>how does "vote to rehear the case equates to a hate for the Endangered Species?"

Let's be honest. This probably won't effect you in a direct, tangible way... Wait a minute. Destroying the environment and wiping out (an) endangered spieces... Regardless if it is a toad or not... And turning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into nothing but an ineffectual, "window-dressing" organization won't effect you...

Until we start seeing the real effects of destroying the environment and wiping out spieces that result in things like polluted water, no more trees and other things human beings need to surive on the planet Earth...

But that doesn't apply to you, right now, does it? So, what does it matter to you?

Roberts is trying to let the Right "have its cake and eat it too" by enforcing the integration of religous doctorine... Most likely, eveangelical Christian doctorine... Into public schools which by nature are supposed to be open to anyone and free of religous influence -- Why they are called "public"...

While at the same time blackmailing Family Planning programs who receive federal aid by restricting their right to mention abortion as a viable alternative as well as those who protest these clinics as a violation of the 1st amendment?

Hmm. That last part... And the first part... May apply to you if this leads to overturning Roe vs. Wade and or when you do finally have children and want a choice as to what they do and don't learn (religion) in a public school if you choose to send them to one.

But that's not you right now, is it? So, what does it matter to you?

This probably doesn't apply to you... Especially, if you are White and live in a middle-to-upper middle class neighborhood...

But what if you're Black, and especially, Arab American and live in poor neighborhood where this kind of thing goes on all the time?

Depending on your ethnicity this probably will never apply to you, so what does it matter?

But that will never happen to you, so what does it matter?

But that doesn't apply to you, so what does it matter?

Depending on your ethnicity, that probably will never apply to you, so what does it matter?

....

The following wasn't meant as a blatant attack, insult or generalization about WalkingOnSunshine. It wasn't.

The point was to use this opportunity as an example of how people in this country, all people, regardless of political affiliation, need to start looking BEYOND their own experiences and realize there are very real consequences for their actions and decisions - including those in positions of power like John Roberts and the Supreme Court -- That effect millions of lives and these consequences may in fact effect them in some way down the road even if they don't see it right now.

I know this is the internet and everyone takes everything that anyone says with a bucket of salt... Myself included... But I feel this is at the core of why this country is deteriorating so much as well as why I think young people don't know the difference between right and wrong anymore... And it is not even their fault.

If their parents teach and exhibit this kind of selfish, short-sighted behavior then they will consider this as being the "right" way to look at the world and again, I feel this is at the heart of what is going on in this country and especially, the current, Republican leadership who is currently in office and why they do the things they do: Because they really do not care about anyone else except themselves, but how much money they can make and only pushing through agendas that benefit a select few and not the masses at large.

WalkingOnSunshine

Actually, the information I looked at was honest and presented both sides of his record. If you don't believe I have done the research on him - fine that's your right. However I have (researched him) - so your "yeah right" about my research is kind of dimissive, but anyway.



I beg to differ, but that's for another thread and time.

I understood your point just fine I was just replying to your comment of : "Him providing completely partisan counsel to Gov. Jeb Bush while he worked in 2000 to prevent a Democratic end-run that would have otherwise given the election to Al Gore."

When it was time to rule in the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch v. Cheney, Roberts ruled in favor of the DC Circuit Court's en banc review of the case. The en banc rule was denied and Roberts, along with Judges Sentelle and Randolph, dissented to the denial. Roberts, Sentelle and Randloph's dissent for the en banc review was justified by the Supreme Court.



Again I did not miss your point at all. Your emphasis orginally seemed to be on the fact that it was a single french fry. However, rules are rules. It was a matter of ruling on whether her rights were violated not on the policies of the Metro system. It was a simple, unaminous, judgement of reading the facts and basing their rulings on that - not sentiments. Besides, the opinion that was written clearly had stated that no one was happy this happened, but her 4th and 5th constitutional rights were not violated.

The metro had to go through an immense amount of negative publicity due to that case. The only logical conclusion was to change the policy so that such lawsuits could be avoided.

Look, the child made a choice to break the rules. If she didn't want a record or to get into trouble she should have abided by the rules. And again, these judges were to make a ruling based on whether her rights were violated not whether the policies were correct or not.



No, it doesn't mean a hate for the Endangered Species Act. Perhaps, Roberts would have voted to reverse the decision or perhaps he just wanted to hear the case.

The developer in this case was ordered by the Fish & Wildlife Services to move a fence from their own property to accommodate the movement of the southwest arroyos toads. These toads are a non-migratory species.

Roberts' dissent vote raised the issue of whether the federal government had the authority to regulate the movement of a toad. Due to the fact, that recent Supreme Court rulings seemed to be reigning in some of what was viewed as Congress' unlimited authority and rule over interstate commerce.

I just don't see it that way.



To stop any vehicle and perform searches? Please. Tarry Jackson was driving, on a suspended license, a stolen car with stolen tags. Just your average run of the mill driver, right? The car was pulled over at 1am for a broken tail light. Jackson could not provide any information about the car except to say it was his "girlfriends". I guess the police should have just let him go then. He had an excuse, right? The police searched the car for registration and looked in the trunk because they had found information there before in regards to stolen cars. What was in the trunk? A loaded .25 caliber pistol and ammuntion inside a child-sized backpack in the trunk.

From the case United States v. Jackson, Roberts dissented by saying:

"Finally, my colleagues’ insistence that police should have further questioned Jackson amounts to prescribing preferred investigative procedures for law enforcement. We have neither the authority nor the expertise for such an enterprise....

In the end, I would leave the judgment as to what lines of inquiry ought to be pursued to the officer himself, and judge probable cause on the facts as they are, rather than on what they might have been had the officer pursued a different course.

I wholeheartedly subscribe to the sentiments expressed in the concurring opinion about the Fourth Amendment’s place among our most prized freedoms. But sentiments do not decide cases; facts and the law do."

He isn't against the 1st Amendment at all. The cases that Roberts argued as Solicitor General should not be used against him since he was merely defending his clients.

Simply not true.

Are you kidding? So I guess if all the judges in this case would have legislated from the bench everything would have been fine then?

Let me see if I have this right - Roberts is against those Amendments because he ruled on whether this girl's rights had been violated and not on the policies of the police? And, anywhere in Roberts' opinion did he say it was "ok" for this to have happened? Again, he even started out the opinion by writing: "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation."

Ok so in your words: "Yes, I will say it again if you love our country and believe in her and think everybody deserves the same opportunities this guy is NOT what you should have in mind as a nominee."

So if I support Roberts then I don't love or believe in my country and I do not believe everyone deserves the same oppportunities? Please.

So, then I guess when the Senate confirmed his nomination by voice vote after he won approval on the Judiciary Commitee, with only three dissenting votes they all do not love the country or believe in equal opportunities? Oh except for the 3 dissenters being Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin.

Nope.

I am not going to comment on the "illegeal war and false pretenses" because this isn't the thread for it.

The Left throws the insults out to the Right just as much - with the "brainwashed followers of Bush" "lazy and rich Republicans" "Crazy Religious Right". And, so on and so forth. I'm just saying I hope it can get to a point where it is more civil or at least people sticking to the issues instead of name-calling.

I believe, the majority of people on both sides, have read the Constitution at some point.

I don't see how Roberts has shown contempt for the Constitution at all. Actually, he upholds the Constitution to a very strict standard. He is not an activist judge and hopefully will not become one.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right here or not. You acknowledge that what happened on 9/11 was terrible, yet that kind of thing happens all over the world on a daily basis. Then you said that we (being America) got a taste of what we do to other countries on a daily basis on that day (being 9/11). I'm quite confused here. So the massive murders of thousands of innocent Americans can be looked at as an example of what we, as Americans, do to other countries' innocent civilians everyday? Because, if that is what you are saying - then I beg to differ. I failed to see the comparison between the actions of terrorists whom murdered thousands of our innocent neighbors, friends and family members to the actions that the United States carries out everyday.

And, like I said it wasn't a matter of whether the metro's policies were right or not - it was a matter of whether this girl's constitutional rights had been violated. I believe it is being overlooked repeatedly that this girl broke the rules. Was it unfortunate that she was arrested? Yes - she was only 12 I believe at the time, and it has been noted in the case that she was "crying and scared". No one wants to read about a child going through that, but rules are rules. The rules have since been changed - which is good.

Let's be honest - this vote could have gone either way if the case was heard again.

How about the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency? During private practice, Roberts represented successfully the environmentalists whom were fighting development around Lake Tahoe. The Supreme Court adopted Roberts' position against those of the property owners and developers. Judges Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas all dissented.

The two cases that Roberts argued that you mentioned were Rust v. Sullivan and Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic. Roberts argued these cases as Deputy
Solicitor General on behalf on his client, the United States.

It is impossible to know how Roberts would rule on an abortion case since he has not ruled on any before.

You lost me here.

Why do you think that because people start by wondering how this will affect them - that is where they stop wondering? I believe that the majority of people hear something and automatically think "does this affect me?" I don't think that means that they are not thinking about others or are being selfish - it is just a matter of human instinct. At least, I believe it is. I don't think it can be judged whether it is wrong or right.

I don't understand this immense kind of hate towards the Right & the current adminstration. People struggle under every adminstration. People benefit under every adminstration. I don't understand why there is this contempt towards this adminstration. The housing market is out of control & unemployment is low right now. Yet, the bad seems to be all people want to focus on. Maybe that is an aspect of human nature as well. But, sometimes it is better to just think of the good things and what can happen. Those that have benefitted under Bush will be sad to see him go. Those that have struggled are looking forward I bet to a new leadership. I just don't accept the theory that this doomesday scenario of spolied rich kids is going to ruin the future.