Washington Post Says, Confirm Judge Roberts!

[Kilmer17]

Put it like this, if I went before congress and said "I want the bible to be taught in schools and every day to start with a prayer session" would there be very very few GOP members that would agree with me, or not so few?

Now reverse it. How many Dems are supporting actions like those of Newdow, or rulings of the 9th circuit? And how many oppose?

The country seems pretty well split down the middle on these issues (id argue a bit to the right, but not important). So to dismiss one side of it as lunacy is the definition of biased.

[codeorama]

Put it like this, if I went before congress and said "I want the bible to be taught in schools and every day to start with a prayer session" would there be very very few GOP members that would agree with me, or not so few?

There would be very few that "actually" agreed with you, but they would say that they did for the benefit of their constituants...

[codeorama]

Now reverse it. How many Dems are supporting actions like those of Newdow, or rulings of the 9th circuit? And how many oppose?

The country seems pretty well split down the middle on these issues (id argue a bit to the right, but not important). So to dismiss one side of it as lunacy is the definition of biased.

Many dems are very religious, I work with a bunch of them. The difference is that most of them undertand it's a personal choice and know it shouldn't be in public schools.

Liberal religious people generally go to church and leave everyone else alone.. conservative religious people generally go to church and try to convince everyone else that they should be doing the same.

What the right wants everyone to think is that the left is non religious, I don't believe that, I think the left just knows that religion is their own business more than the right does.

[Kilmer17]

I agree code, but that wasnt my point.

At least I dont think it was.

This is still the thread about the Post endorsing Roberts right?

[Prosperity]

Now reverse it. How many Dems are supporting actions like those of Newdow, or rulings of the 9th circuit? And how many oppose?

The country seems pretty well split down the middle on these issues (id argue a bit to the right, but not important). So to dismiss one side of it as lunacy is the definition of biased.

To call a side made of lunatics and extremists anything other than lunatics and extremists is more biased (not that my argument was biased).

[Predicto]

Not really, it isnt anything new or groundbreaking. I find it odd that the Post comes out with this endorsement after realizing it was going to happen anyway.

I would have had more respect if they had done some research on their own (IE not just watched CSpan on the hearings) and made this endorsement a few weeks ago.

You really think it is odd or suspicious for a major paper to wait until after the congressional hearings to make their endorsement?

[Kilmer17]

Not suspicious, just odd. It's not as if the outcome isnt already known.

[DeanCollins]

Robert's is a liberal mole, Bush is an idiot!

[BlueTalon]

(not that my argument was biased).

:laugh: SNORT! :laugh:

[DjTj]

I wonder how many times in the past 100 years the Post has endorsed a GOP for any major office? IE, Senate, Congress, Pres, Gov.

Anyone want to bet? The over/under is 10.

What would you be willing to bet?

...There have been a lot of races in 100 years, and a lot of great Republican candidates have run, especially in Virginia races. I haven't done the research yet, but I am almost sure the number is over 10.

[visionary]

Did you all see this...

Specter: O'Connor's replacement should be like Roberts

Bush to meet with senators Wednesday

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Predicting an easy confirmation for John Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he hoped President Bush's next Supreme Court nominee will share Roberts' conservative credentials.

"I hope that we'll have somebody who is modest like Judge Roberts says he is, someone who will promote stability so there are no sharp turns," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania.

With Roberts' rise from appeal courts to the high court all but assured, Bush has begun early consultations on filling the vacancy created by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Bush plans to meet on Wednesday with Specter, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

Leahy, appearing with Specter on CBS' "Face the Nation," said he expects to hear specific names from the president at the White House breakfast meeting.

Possible replacements include federal appellate judges Edith Clement, Edith Hollan Jones and Emilio Garza. Also mentioned have been judges J. Michael Luttig, Samuel A. Alito Jr., James Harvie Wilkinson III and Michael McConnell, lawyer Miguel Estrada, former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"I would hope that we could see the court have less 5-4 decisions and speak with more clarity," Leahy said. "I think the president, with four of us there, may well get some response on what we think about those names."

During last week's confirmation hearings, Roberts declined to elaborate on specific issues such as whether he would uphold the 1973 landmark abortion decision of Roe v. Wade. Still, some Democrats have shown little appetite for a political fight since Roberts would fill the seat of conservative Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, an opponent of Roe.

O'Connor's seat, however, poses a different question because her vote could tip a court closely divided on abortion, the death penalty, gay rights and affirmative action.

Specter said he is confident Roberts will support privacy rights such as abortion and believes a judge in the same mold would be an appropriate replacement for O'Connor.

"I'd like to hear that the president is going to maintain balance and have a very evenly divided court," he said.

Confirmation expected

The first vote on Roberts is expected Thursday in the 18-member committee, which is divided between 10 Republicans and eight Democrats. The full Senate -- composed of 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and independent Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont -- is scheduled to vote the week of September 26, in time for Roberts to take his seat when the court opens a new term on October 3.

One moderate Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said Sunday she will vote to confirm Roberts.

"My personal discussions with Judge Roberts, as well as his responses during the Judiciary Committee hearings, have convinced me that he respects precedents and will apply the law and Constitution fairly," Collins, who supports abortion rights, said in a statement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said Roberts will be a reliable conservative on the court, but he said Republicans will be disappointed if they are counting on him to overturn Roe.

"If your view of conservative is he'll have to decide your way, you'll be disappointed," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Judge Roberts will listen to the arguments from those challenging it and those seeking to uphold it and make a decision not based on politics but the rule of law," Graham said.

A New York Times editorial on Sunday urged senators to vote against Roberts, saying the 50-year-old appeals court judge is too much of a risk to confirm because of his unclear positions.

"On abortion, church-state separation, gay rights and the right of illegal immigrants' children to attend public school -- all currently recognized by the court -- he asks to be accepted on faith," the editorial said. "That just isn't good enough."

The Washington Post, however, said in an editorial Sunday that Roberts was "overwhelmingly qualified."

"Judge Roberts represents the best nominee liberals can reasonably expect from a conservative president who promised to appoint judges who shared his philosophy," according to the editorial.

Former President Clinton said many Democrats may choose to vote against Roberts even though he is well qualified because Roberts could shift the direction of court.

"The Roe v. Wade issue is a big issue, because Justice (Clarence) Thomas said he'd never even discussed it with anybody, and then, like the minute he got on the court, he made it clear that he wanted to repeal it," Clinton told ABC's "This Week."

Clinton said he did not know whether his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, would vote against Roberts.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/roberts.ap/index.html

[chomerics]

Now reverse it. How many Dems are supporting actions like those of Newdow, or rulings of the 9th circuit? And how many oppose?

The country seems pretty well split down the middle on these issues (id argue a bit to the right, but not important). So to dismiss one side of it as lunacy is the definition of biased.

It depends on the case. I agree with a lot of what the 9th does, but I also disagree with what they rule as well. It is all case dependent, and I can agree on both sides of an issue depending on how it is agrued, and they case law they bring up. I think this is how Roberts would rule IMHO.

In other words, the ruling should be held on what the law states, not what the judges think ideologically.