Friday, July 22, 2005

Open Forum 

I would like to know what other people's thoughts are on Judge John Roberts.

What makes him a good choice and what makes him a bad choice? I'm on a mission to gather as many thoughts and information that others have on this matter. I would love to read what you have to say. So please, take this opportunity to say it.

Friday Blogaround 

Here's what's happening:

  • archy thinks strategy.
  • Bark Bark Woof Woof adds some barks to a four-piece series in Salon.com on "reparative therapy" for gays.
  • blogAmY's David throws some quotes back at the Republicans.
  • bloggg goes shopping.
  • Chris wraps up his week at Comic Con.
  • Collective Sigh recalls a date in history.
  • Corrente has the goods on Judge Roberts.
  • Dodecahedron inveighs against TV news.
  • Dohiyi Mir and Johannes Kepler dream of heavenly travels.
  • Echidne on O'Connor's regrets.
  • firedoglake on Chinese currency.
  • First Draft on fun with Scottie.
  • Gamer's Nook greets us from the Big Apple.
  • Happy Furry Puppy has a caption contest.
  • iddybud has the listings for the hearings on the Plame Game.
  • Left is Right recalls a warning.
  • Liberty Street on the death of freedom.
  • Make Me a Commentator goes ying and yang on Roberts.
  • Michael sends pictures from the West where he's on vacation.
  • Pen-Elayne has the dates for Blogathon 2005 and more.
  • Rook's Rant is about not feeling well.
  • rubber hose has a question about Mrs. Roberts.
  • Science and Politics reviews Harry Potter -- no spoilers.
  • Scrutiny Hooligans has a letter of appeal.
  • SoonerThought on the changing rules.
  • Speedkill is disgusted with Conrad Burns.
  • Steve Gilliard on searching passengers in New York.
  • T. Rex's Guide to Life has fun with readers with limited abilities in humor and spelling.
  • The Invisible Library has the backstory on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
  • The Countess on fun with royalty.
  • Wanda reminds us of that other story behind the big story.
  • WTF Is It Now?? on why Ann Coulter has all the time to go on TV.
  • Steve has some tips for swimming in a hurricane.

    That's it for now. Stay cool if it's hot where you are.

    Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

  • Tuesday, July 19, 2005

    Let the Firestorm Begin 

    roberts.jpg From the San Diego Union-Tribune (from an Associated Press report):

    Bush chose federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday as his first nominee for the Supreme Court, selecting a rock solid conservative whose nomination could trigger a tumultuous battle over the direction of the nation's highest court, a senior administration official said.

    Bush offered the position to Roberts in a telephone call at 12:35 p.m. after a luncheon with the visting prime minister of Australia, John Howard. He was to announce it later with a flourish in a nationally broadcast speech to the nation.

    Roberts has been on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since June 2003 after being picked for that seat by Bush.

    Already, plans are on to protest the nomination. If you will be in DC tomorrow,check this out and attend, if you are so inclined:

    JOIN the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wednesday, July 20, at 10:00 am for a demonstration against the nomination of anti-abortion rights John Roberts to the United States Supreme Court!

    Dirksen Senate Office Building - Senate Swamp

    Constitution and First St SE

    The United States Senate must NOT confirm John Roberts. Let's show our support for women's rights.

    So, who is this guy and what's behind the just-started furor?

    Roberts serves on the US Court
    of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    . A staunch conservative, the Buffalo, NY, native is reputed to be a quiet, thoughtful person who is an accompished orator. Roberts once was a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, worked as a lawyer, and is a former deputy solicitor general.

    According to a 2002 Buzzflash op-ed, he is, like SCOTUS also-ran Edith Clement, a Bush campaign-contributor:

    John G. Roberts, Jr., the Hogan & Hartson partner nominated for the DC Circuit, also donated $1000 to Bush -- this really is starting to look like a cover charge -- with $3000 to other Republicans and $3900 to Hogan & Hartson's PAC. The PAC gave $136,000, aside from individual donations, and $30,000 in soft money. Roberts then donated $1000 to the Bush recount effort. Hogan & Hartson clients include Mobil Oil Corporation, 3M, and Hartford Accident & Indemnity.

    And it appears Roberts is no friend to those who support reproductive rights. In one Supreme Court 1991 case during the reign of King George the Elder, Rust v. Sullivan, then-deputy solicitor general Roberts co-wrote a brief supporting the anti-choice government's wish to ban doctors in federally-funded family-planning programs from even discussing the alternative of abortion with patients. He also worked to overturn Roe v. Wade -- not once, but numerous times.

    From the National Abortion Federation:

    As an attorney in the Justice Departments of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Roberts repeatedly argued for the reversal of Roe v. Wade stating that there was "no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution" for the reasoning behind Roe. NAF believes that the appointment of Roberts will weaken the protections of Roe and its progeny. Numerous cases impacting the accessibility of abortion could come before this circuit, including administrative decisions such as the availability of mifepristone (RU-486).

    Slate calls Roberts a hard-liner on the issue. Apparently, that is putting it mildly.

    Additonally, the apparent nominee is someone with whom King George the Younger feels comfortable. That may be due, in part, to the fact that Roberts is seen as a jurist who supports giving the White House wide flexibility in its general operations and particularly in its handling of the so-called War on Terror.

    Before his elevation to the DC Circuit Court, web site The Dossiers included Roberts in a list of "deeply conservative judges" the Bush administration intended and intends to foist upon the American populace via the federal judicial bench.

    "As a political appointee in the Reagan administration, Roberts worked to oppose both busing and affirmative action as means of desegregation. Roberts was also involved in the administration's highly controversial efforts to make it nearly impossible for Voting Rights plaintiffs to prove violations. He later represented the first Bush administration in taking anti-choice positions in two high-profile reproductive rights cases. Roberts is nominated to the DC Circuit which hears many critical cases involving health, safety and civil rights regulations." Alliance for Justice Report

    As we know, Roberts made it to the DC appeals court by a near unanimous Senate confirmation vote. Now the man the New York Sun called a "confirmable conservative" appears to be on his way to consideration by the Senate for a lifelong appointment to the Supreme Court. I don't know about you, but I am quite fearful.

    from all facts and opinions

    Sunday, July 17, 2005

    Joe Wilson on Face the Nation 

    Ambassador Joe Wilson successfully rebutted claims that Rove is off the hook on the Valerie Plame outing on CBS's Face the Nation today.

    "Somebody in the West Wing of the White House was talking to reporters and gave
    up my wife's ...identity," Wilson said.

    Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA operative. Her life and credibility were placed in danger by Rove and conservative columnist Robert Novak.

    It will do no good unless we as a people express our outrage effectively.

    Rep. Roy Blunt made no apologies for this stunt pulled by Rove with Robert Novak, looking for a technicality to let Rove get a pass. He said, laughably, that Rove was being cooperative with investigators and implied that Democrats were taking this matter "too seriously."

    "This has gone on way too long," he said.

    Too seriously? Gone on too long? You mean like the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Rep. Blunt, do you mean like the Vince Foster investigation? Whitewater?

    Screw that.

    It is quite simple. Rove and Novak broke the law. Both need to be charged with treason. Rove needs to be fired immediately. If you are a loyal American you cannot argue with treasonous acts. If you love your country more than your party, you must logically agree that Rove and Novak committed treasonable acts.

    SoonerThought again asks: If this had been a Clinton aide, would the GOP not have already had the aide tried and executed in the media? Would they not have insisted Clinton was himself crooked by association?