PDA

View Full Version : What John Glover Roberts, Junior can do for you.


töm
07-20-2005, 03:04 PM
As you have already most certainly heard from your news ticker, President George "Nacho President" Bush has nominated Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. You might be thinking. "Well, gawlly, what can this boy do for me?" Well, I don't know. But the internet has appeared to me in an opium-induced vision, and given unto me this information.

John G. Roberts, Jr. was not only the captain of his football team in highschool, but he also studied six years of Latin. (Which basically makes you a doctor or a judge off the bat--your choice. At least that's what Moli&egrave;re says. Oh, Moli&egrave;re, you rascal!!) John G. Roberts, Jr.'s father was an executive for a steel company, and through this his upbringing was quite the affluent and bless&egrave;d one. John G. Roberts, Jr. gradated <i>pretty damn good cum laude</i> from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

John G. Roberts, Jr. once served as a clerk to Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme Court. He was also special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith under President Reagan. He was pretty good at arguing in front of the Supreme Court and won most of his cases.

Uhm. Right now he's on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

But anyway. That's a long and glorious career and he should be proud of himself.

But what does he like and what does he not like?

<big>John G. Robers, Jr. hates your rights, the rights of toads, and the rights of mountain tops.</big>

I'm just going to copy and paste now because I don't want my own opinions to muddle this. Voila:

***Roberts was the lead council in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation. The government's position in this case was that private citizens could not sue the government over violations of environmental regulations. While in private practice, Roberts filed an amicus brief arguing for the allowance of "mountaintop removal" for coal mining in West Virginia.


***Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Gale A. Norton siding with a developer in a case involving the protection of a rare Californian toad under the Endangered Species Act. He argued that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."


***Roberts favors religion in schools, co-writing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in which he argued that religious ceremonies should be allowed during high school graduations.


***Roberts was part of the effort to remove certain parts of the Voting Rights Act and then prevent legislation against the Supreme Court's decision about the issue.


***Roberts represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing in a case regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act, in which Toyota argues that carpal tunnel syndrome does not make an employee disabled.


***Roberts defended the validity of a government regulation that banned the mentioning of abortion as an option available to pregnant women seeking help from federally-funded family planning programs:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

<b>HOWEVER</b>

In 2003, during his confirmation hearing for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts responded to a senator's question about Roe v. Wade: "<b>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</b>." He said that his previous statement in 1990 was his client's position, not his own.


***Roberts joined the majority in upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects, overturning the district court ruling.


***The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority involved a twelve-year-old girl who was invited to incriminate herself as an illegal drug user, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters and booked (fingerprinted) because she ate a french fry in a Washington metro station. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint. (NOTE FROM TOM: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THIS ONE MEANS.

<hr>
<hr>
<hr>

Conclusion? Skip the Supreme Court; Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. for president!


Comments? Comment now. If you were a senator, what would YOU do?! Come one. Let's do some Senatorial RP!!

implode
07-20-2005, 03:27 PM
i was going to make this thread this morning, and i'm glad i didn't.

"why didn't you, senator corypants?"

well, senator tomalot, i didn't because i figured that either you or nadine would (i was leaning towards nadina, actually.) and i'm glad i didn't! as i... already mentioned. because if i had, i would have only included three of those examples (i must have missed the toyota, voting rights act, and high school communion articles by not looking hard enough) and, of course, would have not thought of an idea as beautiful as senatorial RP.

that said:

iii... errr.... ick. the man is a filthy <i>lawyer.</i> haha. it's impossible to judge his true stance on things other than who he associates with (the federalist club? feh. our laws should constantly be growing and changing just as our society does, lousy stuffed shirts.) (also, nacho man. EL OH EL.) and what he actually... has to say. so i didn't form an opinion on him yet, other than he's notorious for associating with people that i have a tendency to disagree with. i was waiting for the actual congressional hearing, so i could form an opinion on him then, based on how adapt he is at lying to congress.

BUT.

he is a lawyer. and lawyers have an impeccable ability to look at both sides of the coin equally. i was reading about how he opposed the RIAA monsters earlier this morning, and in the same article, he was also siding with them. i think he's probably very adept at phrasing his arguments nicely, and similarly adept at schmoozing people into accepting what he has to say as truth. but none of this matters. what it all comes down to, when it comes to such an incredibly relevent post as supreme court justice, is whether your morals and opinions are of the same ilk as mine. and i do not believe that his are. vote kerry '04.

steffi
07-20-2005, 03:40 PM
nyet.

implode
07-20-2005, 03:42 PM
you've got a treasure there, tom. cherish her.

the french fry thing made me scratch my head until i realized that i'm balding, too. i think that's the point when i stopped reading, decided you guys would probably make a thread about it, and took a walk to the bank.

töm
07-20-2005, 05:03 PM
oh, i do. more than anything. senator steffi from the great state of the ukraine has been a great supporter in my demagogical rise to power. we are notorious log-rollers and bring back all the pork-barrel legislation that our kids (that's what we call our constituents, isn't that cute?) can eat.

that no one bless, but perhaps some atheist give a thumbs up, to our most secular of nations.

implode
07-20-2005, 05:08 PM
i just looked up "demagogue" and thought "holy shit, there's a <I>word</i> for that?!"

obviously, senator cory is known for his charisma and very little else. NOW PILE IN THE MAGISTRATE-MOBILE, SLUSHIES FOR EVERYONE!

töm
07-20-2005, 05:32 PM
yeah, but they only use it in books when referring to huey long. the rest of its applications have been untapped.

those tax payers won't even know what hit them!

implode
07-20-2005, 05:37 PM
and now i've looked up huey long and thought "my goodness, a dropout who managed a law degree in one year? there IS hope for me!"

hey man, keep this up. maybe i'll eventually have what passes for a high school education when you're finished.

CSMatt
07-20-2005, 05:59 PM
***Roberts was the lead council in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation. The government's position in this case was that private citizens could not sue the government over violations of environmental regulations. While in private practice, Roberts filed an amicus brief arguing for the allowance of "mountaintop removal" for coal mining in West Virginia.
If the government wants to mine things in mountains, they should mine Mt. St. Helens. There's no need to remove the top, because it removed itself in the 1980s. Besides, lava > coal.

***Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Gale A. Norton siding with a developer in a case involving the protection of a rare Californian toad under the Endangered Species Act. He argued that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution did not permit the government to regulate activity affecting what he called "a hapless toad" that "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."
Well, I don't think that our state boundaries are defined in the same way that a toad would define them. Plus, I'm sure the toad wouldn't stay in California if it realized that that's where it was living this whole time.

***Roberts favors religion in schools, co-writing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in which he argued that religious ceremonies should be allowed during high school graduations.
This could prove to be interesting. I always wondered what a graduation ceremony would be like if the <s>freshman</s> dropouts were offered to the graduates as human sacrifices.

***Roberts was part of the effort to remove certain parts of the Voting Rights Act and then prevent legislation against the Supreme Court's decision about the issue.
What parts? I DEMAND DETAILS.

***Roberts represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing in a case regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act, in which Toyota argues that carpal tunnel syndrome does not make an employee disabled.
Absurd! They might as well say that arthritis, blindness, and lack-of-abilty-to-reach-the-petals aren't also disabilities as well.

***Roberts defended the validity of a government regulation that banned the mentioning of abortion as an option available to pregnant women seeking help from federally-funded family planning programs:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

<b>HOWEVER</b>

In 2003, during his confirmation hearing for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Roberts responded to a senator's question about Roe v. Wade: "<b>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</b>." He said that his previous statement in 1990 was his client's position, not his own.
This just proves that most lawyers are only in the business for the money, and that they'll represent any client, regardless of their own personal beliefs, if the client can pay up.

***Roberts joined the majority in upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects, overturning the district court ruling.
I don't think he really had an opinion about this one, sense it says that he joined the majority. After all, you're going to be liked by a lot more people if you publicly agree with most of them rather than just few of them.

***The D.C. Circuit case Hedgepeth v. Washington Metro Authority involved a twelve-year-old girl who was invited to incriminate herself as an illegal drug user, taken into custody, handcuffed, driven to police headquarters and booked (fingerprinted) because she ate a french fry in a Washington metro station. Roberts wrote for a 3-0 panel affirming a district court decision that dismissed the girl's complaint. (NOTE FROM TOM: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THIS ONE MEANS.)
I do. It means that the war on drugs is really screwed up if the police had to try to convince a 12-year-old girl to purposely break the law and then eat a french fry just so they could arrest her to send a message to the general public. If the cops haven't already started persecuting people, they've certainly started now.

BreadObama69
07-21-2005, 11:08 AM
He's soooo getting confirmed.