• I missed that Michael Moore movie!   There are no "extreme left wingers" on the court.  Never have been.  Maybe if Nader is elected.  Well, that's when pigs will fly. 

    February 23, 2008 at 1:45 p.m.

  • My intent with this blog was to emphasize that under Republican control.  The lower court's and the appellate judges  are mostly conservative.  Chief Justice Roberts  was a member of the Federalist Society,so he  Is definitely a right-wing ideologue..
    Roe V. Wade is not the only issue the Supreme Court  will rule on. In all due respect, civil liberties and reining in presidential abuses should be ruled fairly by the Supreme Court.
    I don't share your ,all or nothing attitude. Basically, I am happy with my 80/20 rule. I get 80% of what I want one of the compromise of the other 20, without selling out my principles. If I am defeated I will try again. A stacked court is the ultimate goal of both liberals and conservatives. I think that is just flat wrong.

    February 23, 2008 at 11:20 a.m.

  • Mike, I'm not assassinating your character at all- just talking you to task for your own statements.
    You do realize that Justice David Souter was also a surprise for many as he handed down rulings that seemed to counter his testimony before Congress also.
    I'm not a law analyst, but I'm sure that both Roberts and Souter could explain why their later judgements would seem to counter what one was led to believe during their confirmation process.  Once they get on the Court, we don't own them, Mike. And it works both ways, for conservatives and liberals.
    The Michael Moore comment was spurred by your use of "extreme right wing conservatives." John Roberts is hardly a radical right-winger.   I would say Scalia and Roberts, perhaps.
    If "moderate" means pro-abortion, then I can't go down that road at all. There is nothing moderate about the support of killing 3,500 babies everyday in this country, more than have been lost in Iraq so far, to my knowledge.
    IMO, men and women who vigorously support abortion, especially late term abortion without batting an eye (Obama), have a character flaw. That flaw and way of thinking cannot but flow through and influence their actions when it comes to taking care of vulnerable people. I realize that pro-abortion people can do some other great things in the way of insurance, ending the war, raising wages, etc.  But it only makes sense that without the right to life, none of these other things mean anything.

    February 23, 2008 at 10:27 a.m.

  • One more thing maryann.......In all my postings I have called for divided government.
    I do not want  a large Democratic congress, So that statement I made about John Roberts being powerless.
    I want a balanced nomination committee who will pick a liberal to replace Stevens and a moderate to replace Ginsberg.
    That moderate would be like Sandra Day O'Connor  the swing vote.
    Roberts could not rule by ideology.

    February 23, 2008 at 9:26 a.m.

  • Still assassinating my character, without giving me a chance to explain maryann?
    From "Broken Government" by John Dean page 299 when asked by Ted Kennedy about his earlier statements that keep order and voting rights act constitute one of the most intrusive interferences magic about federal court to state and local processes. John Roberts  said that his words were nothing more than an effort to articulate the views of administration, he worked for 23 years ago. Yet, once he was on the court, in his first Voting Rights Act that related to time delays shenanigans in redistricting Texas. Roberts descended stated Supreme Court could not be involved in this sordid business is divided up was up by race, which was the view of the administration, which he worked for 23 years ago. When asked for his view on unitary executive theory, John Robert indicated he strongly believed in the three branches of government. Check for yourself on how John Roberts rules on habeas corpus, and the extension of presidential powers.
    We have a process; we have a nomination committee for selecting Supreme Court justices. Comes under the Constitution "Advise and consent". I believe our founders wanted that balance, not a country dominated by one ideology.
    I stayed on topic and did not question your character. I can only judge you by reading your post, because I do not know you. You once said you wanted nine Supreme Court judges to leave no doubt.
    Where did Michael Moore come from?

    February 23, 2008 at 9:19 a.m.

  • Your saying that "Roberts will be powerless," disproves your whole premise, Mike- that we have a democracy!   You want a powerful left, that leaves the "right" powerless.  Sounds like you want the tyranny of the left.
    Mike, can you back up your claim that John Roberts lied, or is that some Michael Moore talking points from a few years ago?  Would you know a man of integrity? I'm beginning to wonder, especially if you knock John Roberts.
    The Supreme Court never has been a situation where a liberal seat strictly calls for another liberal to fill the vacancy or viceversa. The Founding Fathers realized that, and that's why the president in office can nominate and then the Congress and the people can take it from there.  There is nothing in the Constitution which is "tit for tat."
    BTW, if I make my opinion known to the Congressman of our area, will you call it censorship of other nominees? :-}
    Yep, you're right the Supremes represent all Americans, and right now, we have quite a mix. Thanks, George Bush.

    February 22, 2008 at 11:39 p.m.

  • No, John Roberts actually lied to get a seat on the Supreme Court. A lie of ommission...So if a liar is integrity.
    I was not trying to deceive,because we should  have someone from the left on the Supreme Court....My title emphasized BALANCE.
    I thought it was a good idea to replace Justice Rehnquist with another conservative because the balance did not tilt.
    The Supreme Court represents ALL AMERICANS  not just the extreme right,on a variety of issues.
    I just named a few  rulings of this John Roberts led court,but if Barack Obama gets to seat two judges Justice Roberts will be powerless.
    You see ,we have a democracy.

    February 22, 2008 at 11:22 p.m.

  • Hopefully, we will have another conservative judge on the court, with the election of John McCain.
    Mike, you forgot to mention the "extreme" left -wing faction, with Ruth Bader-Ginsburg- appointee of your king, Bill Clinton.
    I kind of like my right to life, and just wish it extended to all those who are alive- like children in the womb. Chief Justice John Roberts's integrity is beyond reproach, and I trust him to guide us to a fuller meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- come hell, high water, and even a Democratic president of the next four years.

    February 22, 2008 at 10:48 p.m.