Roberts wrote in 1991 "Roe v wade...should be overruled."

[jackstraw45]

Wow.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/crime_courts/12154339.htm

"When Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, Clinton's former solicitor general, Seth Waxman, called Roberts an "exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocate."

He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court -- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.

That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Roberts won the case -- Rust v. Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion."


Big fight ahead.

[WI_DEM]

1. This statement alone should cause every democrat to stand

up against him and the moderate republicans like Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Arlen--that is if they have backbone. But watch Miller of Nebraska say "I have an open mind on this guy."

[papau]

9. Naral's old fact sheet on John Roberts included the statements below:

Naral's old fact sheet on John Roberts included the statements below:

NARAL: REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM & CHOICE JUNE 2001
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Previously nominated by President George Bush to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1992.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, 1989-93.

"The Court was so accustomed to the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Roberts¡¦ oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice asked, ¡§Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?¡¨ He responded, ¡§No, your honor, the issue doesn¡¦t even come up.¡¨ To this the justice said, ¡§Well that hasn¡¦t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.¡¨Transcript of Oral Argument of John Roberts, Jr., dated Oct. 16, 1991, Bray v. Alexandria Women¡¦s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No. 90-985).

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that ¡§e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled¡K. he Court¡¦s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion¡K finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.¡¨Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 89-1392).
In Rust v. Sullivan -500 U.S. 173 (19917), the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.ƒnRoberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, argued as amicus curiae for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the
protesters¡¦ behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion. Intervening as amicus is a wholly discretionary decision on the part of the Solicitor General. Here the government chose to involve itself in a case in support of those who sought to deprive women of the right to choose. Roberts argued that the protesters¡¦ blockade and protests merely amounted to an expression of their opposition to abortion and that a civil rights remedy was therefore inappropriate.

[ewagner]

2. His record on environmental issues

sucks just as bad....

as does his record on Civil Rights....

as does his record on Separation of Church and State.....

this guy is bad news....worse yet, he's only 50 years old so we could have to put up with him for 30-35 years.....

[Erika]

5. Bush ignored the role of a consensus builder

He's well on his way to building a corporate theocracy.

[Erika]

3. Bush owed the religious right & he just paid them back

at the cost of women's health and choice.

[beam me up scottie]

8. You said it.

It's our worst nightmare come true.
So much for all of the people who told us not to worry.
Can we worry now ?

[Erika]

12. No, we have ways to fight back

that can be very aggressive.

[social justis]

13. Pull it together, guys

This is no time for a total meltdown.

[beam me up scottie]

24. Pull it together ?

Meltdown ?
:eyes:

[bluestateguy]

4. Right wing extremist

.

[Sannum]

6. holy mother of fuck.

These people are evil. Next they will try to ban menstraution because eggs are lost.

[iamjoy]

37. Eggs Are Not Lost Through Menstruation

They dissolve. Menstruation is the expulsion of what would have been the placenta had conception occurred.

But I understand and agree with your sentiment.

Of course, our government is mostly men, so we must wonder if they will actually ban masturbation. Every sperm is sacred...

[femrap]

42. eggs and sperm....a new brunch item

LOL at banning our periods....hey if that is all it takes, I would gladly stop bleeding every month!

Seriously, we are in for one hell of a fight....I for one am going out and buying a big tube of SPERMICIDE.

Did anyone else notice that today marked (at least for me) the first time in television history that the PROSTATE was advertised on national news....it was pictured right there beside the bladder....! Then there was another advertisement for a multiple vitamin that is good for the prostate.

What does the prostate and johnny junior have in common beside July 19?

(Now do you guys understand why we hate tampon and douche commercials?)

[progressivebydesign]

7. The religious right is destroying America, & their head kook is in charge!

I don't know what to say right now. Bush is obviously a complete nutcase now.. He is letting his own bizzare ideas, and those of less than 25% of American adults, dictate life for the 75% who do not share their scary fucking beliefs. So this was a payback to the faithful, huh? Will we survive another few years of Bush?

[jackstraw45]

10. What Bu$h said he'd do...

"My nominee will be a fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values. "

Hmm..

Let's read the words again, shall we?

Roberts, in 1991, in a brief to the Supreme Court:

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

Mainstream?

[MidnightWind]

11. Think about it. Super Controversal choice--takes the heat

off of Rove. Sacrifical lamb

[ooglymoogly]

46. exakitakly

this was obvious the moment he came out a week early to make a nomination...but of course it would be meaningless if it didn't put the country into a jaw dropping uproar and drown out the treasonous scandal...but then we have always known this guy is insane.

[KamaAina]

14. But, but, but, but Kennedy will still vote to uphold Roe! (sarcasm)

Sure he will -- but he'll also vote to uphold everything that comes down the pike tat chips away at Roe. Bans on late-term (not "partial-birth", please) abortion. Parental notification. Days-long waiting periods. Bans on crossing state lines to obtain an abortion. Before you know it, Roe will be about as meaningful as, say, the ABM treaty, and all without any scary headlines reading "Roe overturned" that might actually cause people to rise up. Perfect.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[Perky]

15. this was not a judicial decision

He was an attonry in Ed Meese's Justince Dpartment. He said in his confirmation heraing that he was not inclined to overtun Roe.

[WillyT]

16. Nominated And Kicked !!!

:nuke::kick::nuke:

[Initech]

17. Oh, did I call that one or what?

I knew Bush was going to nominate a right-wing religious nut. KNEW IT!

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Roberts argued for Clinic blockade

Clinic blockade case argued

Copyright Times Publishing Co. Oct 7, 1992

The Bush administration renewed its argument before the Supreme Court on Tuesday that federal judges do not have jurisdiction to stop Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups from trying to shut down abortion clinics through blockades and mass demonstrations.

Deputy Solicitor General John G. Roberts Jr. argued that the Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era federal civil-rights law that federal judges across the country have invoked as the basis for injunctions to bar the protests, does not apply to actions motivated by opposition to abortion.

The Ku Klux Klan Act, enacted in 1871 to protect the newly freed blacks in the South from mob violence by white racists, prohibits conspiracies to deprive people of their civil rights.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the law to apply only to conspiracies aimed at a particular group or "class" of people and motivated by a "discriminatory animus" against that class.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/54277246.html?MAC=107bb2091517dc38c06dfc103f399d7b&did=54277246&FMT=FT&FMTS=FT&date=Oct+7%2C+1992&author=&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&printformat=&desc=Clinic+blockade+case+argued+at+high+court

[DemFromMem]

19. With all due respect....

As a lawyer, it was Roberts' job to advocate for his clients. I'm a lawyer and can tell you that I have had to frequently argue positions with which I personally disagreed.

Whether Roberts would overturn Roe v. Wade is a legitimate concern, but I don't think it's fair to use briefs he wrote as Solicitor General as evidence of what he would do on the bench.

Same goes for briefs he wrote for his cases at Hogan and Hartson.

[iamjoy]

38. Good Point About Lawyers

But then, do you really take clients who are totally antithetical to you?

Seems like you'd have too many cases where you had to argue a position with which you disagreed. It also seems that some of Robert's writings were extraneous and he was using the ruling as a soapbox for his opinion, adding his personal beliefs on to the law.

[DemFromMem]

44. Yes

Without getting into my particular practice area, I'd give you the example of criminal lawyers who represent people every day who have committed despicable acts. Should we believe that criminal lawyers somehow support the poor choices of their clients?

[iamjoy]

45. I Think It's Different

If you choose to go into criminal law you knows you will be defending criminals, possibly ones who have committed despicable acts. But if you believe everyone is entitled to a fair defense, that is a cornerstone of our justice system.

However, civil and business law is a little different, isn't it? A lawyer chooses his/her client knowing what type of philosophy the client has, knowing what the expectations will be. The lawyer could choose to be a representative for Planned Parenthood or Operation Rescue. For example, to say a lawyer for Operation Rescue who argued a key case isn't necessarily anti-life is a little foolish, the lawyer wouldn't have sought a key position with that organization unless he/she shared the philosophy.

Roberts knew who was hiring him.

But then, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm naive. If so, I welcome the feedback, but if it is going to get involved, we may need to start another thread ;-)

[DemFromMem]

49. Another hypothetical

Let's say Kerry won the election. I'd obviously be interested in a job in the Kerry Solicitor General's office. My job would be to represent the Administration's views in front of the Supreme Court.

Did I agree with EVERY view of Kerry? No. Doubt most people did. We all have different political views, but are Democrats because we tend to agree on a range of issues. Some of us have libertarian streaks, some of us are more pro-immigration than others, our views on the Middle East conflict are far from uniform.

But would I have supported President Kerry and done my job? Yes, even if my personal views were not the same as the President's.

[femrap]

43. lawyer as whore

hey, I worked for Corporate America, so I have an understanding of what you are saying.....but I ain't buying.

This lipless asshole loves what he is doing....and at the same time thanks his parents, sister, and wife......the only son in the family....I know the type oh so well....

Get ready to fight the little prince, johnny junior.

[WeRQ4U]

47. I'm with you on this one.

As a lawyer myself I have a hard time thinking one way or the other about this guy on abortion until I actually read one of his opinions. His opinions on Roe v. Wade are standard opposition debate points. That is the same line you hear in law school when discussing the implications of the Roe v. Wade decision. It's not this new thing that he thought up.

For what it's worth, I've also heard that he appreciates judicial precedent. Perhaps stare decisis will come back to the Court. You really never know.

[geekgrrl]

20. just when I think Bushit couldn't get any worse... sad... so very sad...nt

[writes2000]

21. According to MSNBC, He Said The Opposite In 2003

"Roberts on Roe

In his defense, Roberts told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearing 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.”

www.msnbc.com

[Zen Democrat]

22. Oh, the freepers won't like that!!!

[writes2000]

23. No, They Won't.

If he really believes this is settled law, then he won't legislate from the bench.

I really don't think Bush can afford to nominate a rabid anti-choice candidate.

[Fleshdancer]

25. THIS is the quote we need to be blasting from the rooftops

Splintering the right is the way we should go about this situation. Let them battle out the nomination so we can remain focused on Rove.

[writes2000]

26. You Read My Mind. I Entirely Agree.

Bush needs to feel the heat from all sides.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

28. The Pubs Won't Turn On Their Leader

Isn't it obvious, that they're all going to fall in line behind Shrub and his non-chief of staff, as they always do? Regardless of their constituency, I fear the leadership will do what they always do, and unfortunately, the Dems will do what they always do....roll over.

Oh, and by the way....Shrub is GUILTY of TREASON!!

[Fleshdancer]

48. yes they will

not necessarily the people on the streets, but the Pubs in DC have no choice. Rove is about to be neutralized and Bush is a lame duck. Delay is spoiled goods and the Pubs know it. They're starting to feel the heat again from the press and ultimately, their true goal is to win elections and keep power. Standing on a sinking boat (albeit a slowly sinking boat) is pointless and they know it.

[TahitiNut]

35. That's as an appellate judge only ...

... and is the typical authoritarian postion of subservience to superiors. Once he's on the SCOTUS, he gets to say otherwise. He figures he paid his obedience dues and now he's at the top he gets to do what he wants.

[liberaliraqvet26]

27. I really think it could have been much worse...

this guy is a wild card, before we all meltdown lets see what the hearings bring. The only time he brought up Roe v Wade was for a client who was anti choice. he is definitly capable of thinking (harvard) and does not appear to be a knee jerker like thomas, he is a northerner so is probably not a total jesusfreak. time will tell but I do think he will be confirmed quickly.

Then we can all go back to trashing Rove, low poll numbers and killing the social security privatization!!!

Lets keep our heads up, 2006 is coming.

[iamjoy]

40. By Not Being Worse, It Is Worse

That sounds like a paradox, but if Dubya had nominated a far right extremist (another Bork, say) we would have felt very good and righteous about fighting such an appointment.

But what can we say about Roberts? We (liberals) disagree with him on almost every major philosophical issue. But how can we say he is not qualified? Many moderates (whose support we need to hold public opinion) do not like the idea of blocking a candidate on idealogical grounds alone, but on qualifications. Of course, when a candidate is too idealogical it inteferes with his/her qualifications, but is that really the case with Roberts? Or do his views just make us want to puke?

The only way we might be able to build a case is this whole nomination (after everything Roberts has done for Dubya & Republicans) smacks of quid pro quo. But only if our (Democrats)noses are fairly clean on this issue.

Had Dubya nominated another Bork, the moderate Democrats could have used the "extreme circumstances" to filibuster the nominee. It would have been worth a fight, because we would have won. But, I don't see how we can win with Roberts. And our country of course, is losing.

[mousie]

29. I read this somewhere too

Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court seat for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

[mousie]

30. signed the NARAL petition...

Dear Friend,

President Bush nominated a right-wing judicial activist with an anti-choice track record to the Supreme Court: John Roberts.

If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...." We must not allow someone who's spent his career advocating ending the right to choose to be appointed to the most important court in our country.

Click on the link below to take the first step toward stopping Roberts.

http://naral.org/

[Turn CO Blue]

31. He also represented Playboy at one point...so, who knows?

One of the lawyers (on Scarborough Country, ugh) was commenting about the Roberts comment on overturning RvW was when BushSr. was Roberts' "client" over 14 years ago, and his point was sorta "So what? He was representing his client". Then he added this (not exact), "Roberts also defended Playboy in court."

I'm trying to google that case. See if one of you can beat me to it!

[Turn CO Blue]

32. Here's my first hit on the case...

<http://www1.excite.com/home/careers/company_profile/0,15623,1103,00.html>



Practiced litigation

Hogan & Hartson
The firm's litigation team is quite impressive - it argued 12 cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court between 1997 and 2000. The appellate practice is headed by John Roberts, named one of the top 10 civil litigators by The National Law Journal in 1999.

Bunny ears

Lovers of mildly racy daytime TV will applaud Hogan & Hartson's First Amendment victory before the Supreme Court on behalf of Playboy Entertainment Group, the cable television programming subsidiary of Playboy Enterprises. The Court affirmed, 5 to 4, a permanent injunction against Section 505 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. What this effectively means is that Playboy is free to transmit its fleshy broadcasts 24 hours a day instead of confining them to hours of the day when children are less likely to view them. This is the first Supreme Court decision affirming that even the most trashy cable television is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection.

[TahitiNut]

34. Yes, he supports corporate 'personhood" and "one dollar, one vote"

... like his neofascist cronies. Like all such neofascists, he thinks the "Bill of Rights" is given to those who can buy 'rights'.

[Turn CO Blue]

36. I don't see the Cable case that narrowly...

we have no way of knowing what his views are until the questions are asked...but he could very well support the First Amendment. I'm certainly no big fan of Playboy, but I support their rights. (If people want to pay for that channel or watch that channel, I'll support their right to do it.) So apparently, Roberts' firm won the case before the Supreme Court defending their right to broadcast during daytime hours.

[Turn CO Blue]

33. Roberts' wife served on board of Feminists for Life

<http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/070041.asp>


John Roberts's wife, Jane, has served as executive vice president of Feminists for Life

(I can't get onto Feminists for Life, access denied)

[Sydnie]

41. You can see Feminists for Life cached pages here

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Feminists+for+Life%22


They are quite involved in what appears to be the overturning of Roe V Wade.

Also Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminists_for_Life
They actually quote Alice Paul and others on their site as a supporter of their cause. Somehow, I am not buying that.

[Turn CO Blue]

39. Planned Parenthood concerned but not announcing opposition

to Roberts

A spokesperson earlier (on Scarborough Country, ugh) said that PPFA was withholding support or opposition until after the Senate hearings.


Here's their earlier press release
<http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/media/pressreleases/pr-050719-roberts.xml[br />]
PPFA Expresses Concern on Nomination of Roberts to Court
Firm Commitment to Women's Health and Safety Vital to Confirmation

July 19, 2005 CONTACT:
Erin Kiernon [phone]


WASHINGTON, DC — Responding to President Bush's nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today called for a thorough and deliberative confirmation process, saying Roberts must be prepared to demonstrate his commitment to constitutional protections for women's health and reproductive rights.

"The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety. It is particularly troubling that Roberts went on the record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned when he served as a lawyer for the government," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA. "Only a nominee committed to protecting women's health and safety should be confirmed by the Senate. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court requires a confirmation process that is thoughtful, intelligent, and fully deliberated — the Senate owes the American public nothing less."

(more at link)