John G. Roberts....


9 comments posted
This judicial nominee would

This judicial nominee would like to see the US go back to living as they did in the 50's, when women stayed home, we were segragated from minorities, and no one questioned the government.

OleBlue's picture
Posted by OleBlue on 20 July 2005 - 12:05pm
Alas, not going backwards

I do not think they want to go backwards to the 1950's. I think they want to go forwards to the 2010's when the nation becomes a theocracy with radical Christians at the helm - fighting the infidel.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 20 July 2005 - 12:16pm
Along that same

Along that same line...there's actually a book that I just started to read, Half Nation Under God by Cora Corbett that basically envisions that exact scenario. I'm interested to see how it ends, and since I haven't finished it myself, I can't really say whether it'll be helpful, but I think that given the current situation and how much that new religious rule seems to be looming, perhaps more people should read it...

ferdette's picture
Posted by ferdette on 20 July 2005 - 1:53pm
Setting a new standard for subjugation of women

They have the technology. They can make misogyny better than it was -- better, stronger, faster.

Just wait until pregnant women are required to wear GPS ankle bands.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 July 2005 - 4:10pm
The role of a litigator

Please keep in mind that an attorney in private practice -- or one whose client is the U.S. government -- must take positions that are not necessarily his own.


pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 21 July 2005 - 8:26am
The common excuse

Given the context of this nomination, and the details of his life, the "he was only following orders" starts to sound like the Nuremburg defense.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 21 July 2005 - 11:28am

I heartily dissent. I haven't started practicing yet (the bar exam, y'know), but in the past year, I've clerked at a law firm and at an industry nonprofit. At times, I have assayed a stance antithetical to my own on particular laws or issues because it was part of my job. Yeah, sometimes you take views that are contrary to your own because they're in the best interest of the client, or at the client's direction.


pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 21 July 2005 - 12:28pm
Widen your lens just a bit

You focus on professional credentials. There's no question that, when his lawfirm represents Bush v. Gore, he's no slouch.

This isn't about credentials. This is about a political agenda, a pre-existing intention to "fix" the Supreme Court, as Scalia and Thomas have openly advocated (by calling for willy nilly reversals of court precedent, and to hell with the reasoning).

This is about strong ties to groups opposed to reproductive rights.

If you want to pretend this isn't political, that's great. But 5+ years of very vivid reality indicate that this man isn't the "stealth" candidate for no reason.

If this minority dominionist coup of the courts is successful, we're in for perhaps the darkest period in this country's history yet.

So yes, there is great reason for concern, and all the denials and pollyanna platitudes in the world are not going to allay fears that this is one more step to subvert our government with conservative activism in the courts.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 21 July 2005 - 12:39pm
Wait and see ...

Which is why I'd prefer to see what comes out in his confirmation hearings and as people investigate his legal writings. I honestly wish he had been nominated about six months ago; back then, I still had the unlimited Westlaw access that would have let me research him a bit more on my own.

But, still, if he's a stealth candidate, we'll see what comes out in the confirmation hearings.


pennywit's picture
Posted by pennywit on 21 July 2005 - 1:13pm