The ultra right is now the mainstream, and by that standard, I think it’s going to be just about impossible to uphold a filibuster, much less muster up enough Republican defectors to defeat Roberts.
Back to Main
July 20, 2005
WB: Bob Roberts
Comments
IMHO the left shouldn’t waste any time at all on worrying about supreme court nominations, provided the nominee isn’t a proven crook. lets face it if bushCo pick anyone other than a wingnut they are behaving even more undemocratically than usual since the BushCo/Cheney campaign last year was aimed smack dab at the wingnuts. It’s time that the citizens of the US themselves put up with the fruit of their facist tendenencies instead of the souls in other countries who have had to suffer uS morality forced on them by Aid arm twisting.
Stop and think for a second about the chaos that would ensue if these looney toons did overturn Roe V Wade. yes it would be harsh on those immediately effected but outlawing terminations in the nation that has the highest rate of abortion in the West will create chaos in a lot more places than teenage girls homes. Given that a decision such as that would go hand in hand with further restrictions on sex education we can be sure that parts of society would quickly become unmangeable. I realise that those who hold a woman’s right to an abortion as a basic tenet may have trouble with this because the short term result would be so awful. Long term however it could only ensure that voters demand realistic philosophies from their self appointed leaders and one doubts that the holy rollers would ever be able to suggest the enforcement of their morality on others and succeed again.
I understand that one of the great problems with SCOTUS is that these men (because they are all men again aren’t they) are appointed for life and that at present there is no way to democratically overturn their decisions.
Well isn’t it about time that political leaders were forced to take a meaningful ethical stand on issues rather than handball anything contentious over to a judicial body which has been selected to give a particular result, but which also enables political leaders to evade responsibility for ethical decisions?
The fact that supreme court justices regularly split down ideological lines on most decisions tells us just how lame these fellows are. They don’t make decisions based on the weight of the law. They make decisions based on their political beliefs and then find law to justify it afterwards. The sooner the US is rid of this anti-democratic ‘institution’ the better.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 20 2005 7:21 utc | 1
This is not on-topic, but I thought the regulars might be interested even before Billmon posts something relevant.
Who killed most civilians in Iraq? If you believe the US propaganda and the docile mainstream media, ‘the insurgents’ (collectively). I on the other hand have argued everywhere, including on my blog, that the main culprit are the occupation forces and criminals, that is claiming that occupation forces are there to defend Iraqis from evil terrorists is a particularly cruel joke.
Now, for the first time, a major news outlet reports the above truth too – the BBC:
Nearly 25,000 civilians have died violently in Iraq since the US-led invasion in March 2003, a report says… The survey was carried out by the UK-based Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group…
37% of all non-combatant deaths were caused by the US-led coalition… Insurgents are said to have caused 9% of the deaths, while post-invasion criminal violence was responsible for another 36%.
I note: the latter is also the occupiers’ (ir)responsibility. I also note: the IBC is based on (Western) media reports, which represents a significant undercount, while health-related excess deaths (which were included in the Lancet study) are ignored.
(You find the original Iraqi Body Count report here, but I thought the mainstream media reporting is a major part of the story.)
In the second paragraph, “The first Bush administration had a habit of taking extreme anti-choice positions … These could be seen as primarily political gestures to the religious right — gestures … had so little influence on the court …”
Just to note that the arguments become citable precedent. Alabama, are you listening?
Posted by: jonku | Jul 20 2005 8:20 utc | 3
So Roberts has already contributed to the steady tidal wash against the keynote Roe v. Wade case; a shibboleth that separates at the very least the GOP and the Dems; by introducing doubt in an unrelated case, according to recent sources.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 20 2005 8:25 utc | 4
They say John Roberts carries anti-abortion water. Quite an insult really. I heard that he is a really good lawyer, a good jduge, intelligent and well-spoken.
Good qualities in a Justice. The question I ask is how the actual process will vet and decide him.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 20 2005 8:30 utc | 5
:They say John Roberts carries anti-abortion water. Quite an insult really. I heard that he is a really good lawyer, a good jduge, intelligent and well-spoken.”
Well, great, as a Male Supremacist Woman Hater, we should ship him off to be a judge in Iraq. He’ll fit right in. As far as America goes, he’d be far more attractive roasting on a spit over a cool fire, while engaged in his favorite pasttime licking the asses of the Pirates.
Posted by: jj | Jul 20 2005 8:38 utc | 6
I’m instantly inclined to oppose Roberts as the Bush nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Conner.
I’m in Canada, a citizen, and the U.S. has some impact on us us beyond the media, powerful as it is, and the business, hugely more so.
We gadflies to that nation which sees our familiar face as member instead of neighbour have a similar growth of fundamentalism — which I oppose — and I think Canada can tend to mirror the U.S. these days.
And my heart says that abortion should be permitted. This specific issue cleaves the polity.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 20 2005 8:43 utc | 7
Hi, jj.
Whassup? Just got into this thread and discovered I have something to say.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 20 2005 8:45 utc | 8
Second offense: Billmopn points out that John Roberts ruled against a 12-year-old charged with eating food in a mall. Something about a french fry.
This reminds me of Rudy Giuliani in a successful mayoralty run, a televised town meeting where he goes to a Harlem or Bronx school and the little girl asks him what to do when she knows the other students carry knives.
Rudy tells her to report it to the authorities. He should have hugged her and said as Mayor he would try to keep her safe.
At least that would have given me a wee bit of confidence in his people skills.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 20 2005 9:50 utc | 9
Or he coulod have used his huge prosecutorial skills and asked, “what are their names?”
Posted by: jonku | Jul 20 2005 9:53 utc | 10
I like Billmon alot but I think he whiffed on this one. The french fry decision doesn’t sound so wacko to me. And the positions an attorney takes as an advocate aren’t necessarily the positions he will embrace as a judge. This may have been one of Meathead’s finer moments.
Posted by: aloyisius | Jul 20 2005 12:15 utc | 12
The U.S. will continue its slide into theocracy with all the attendant misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia and blurring of church-state boundries that entails. Roberts is neither here nor there in the grand scheme, just another notch on the bedpost for Bush. Three years is a long time and this may be but one of several SCOTUS replacements he names. Combine that with all the lower tiers in the court system he will fill and the tenor of the judiciary will be decidedly fascist for an entire generation or more. Tell your daughters if they miss a period it’s paint the nursery or a short vacation to Canada. You gays better enlarge those closets. Back up the dumpsters to the schoolhouse doors and start tossing science textbooks. And no more mumbling the Lord’s prayer Johnnie, get the words straight and proclaim them loudly. Can’t have your classmates thinking you’re a little heathen, can we?
Posted by: steve duncan | Jul 20 2005 13:10 utc | 13
What I think is weird is that I thought the WH was relishing the prospect of a huge judicial fight that would play to the base. The have raised $20+ M afterall. Everyone seemed geared up to fight a brawl and W seemed ready to deliver. I guess one look at the poll numbers and that was no longer operative. So now instead of Assoc. Justice Sentelle, W delivers the stealth justice with little history.
Conservatives must feel the whole episode a little anti-climatic after spending months gnashing their teeth at the prospect of red meat.
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 20 2005 14:30 utc | 14
I guess with Karl on the ropes, the take no prisoners attitude, feed every nugget to the religious right attitude sort of fades. I doubt this guy goes to church. He probably races cars with Powell on Sundays and catches brunch at the Mayflower, like good corporate conservatives do.
On a second note, I wonder if Sen. “Man On Dog” Santorum will have to vote against him. After all he did spend 7 years at Harvard and excelled there. I wonder what sort of liberal pedophilia rubbed off on him in all that time?
Posted by: Bubb Rubb | Jul 20 2005 14:39 utc | 15
The GOP can’t afford an overturn of Wade. Kicking suburban women overboard would end control of the House and put Hillary in the Oval Office. Plus the zealots will lose their fevor or find other windmills to tilt at and not necessarily ones that benefit the GOP. The pundits will be “shocked” and blather on about lifetime posts and the nature of the court when the stealth candidate votes to maintain the status quo.
Posted by: ! | Jul 20 2005 14:51 utc | 16
Turns out that if you replace “hedge trader” with “former insurance company CEO”, we have our very own Bob Roberts here in Seattle. The CEO of Safeco is “exploring” a Senate bid. He’s never held public office.
The media here is saying it’s tough to figure out where he stands on the issues, but the fact of the matter is that 1) he proclaims Reagan as his hero 2) he’s been hand picked by the White House and 3) he’s being mentored by Slade “Skeletor” Gorton.
In other words, the media is a bunch of idiots.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/233285_mcgavick20.html
Posted by: the bachelor | Jul 20 2005 16:45 utc | 17
republicans here are going to be out for blood after their loss w/ the rossi fiasco. we’ll see if cantwell can hold her own. at least she’s sort of listening to the progressives here. seattle has strong grassroots, more dean delegates than any state and gregoire floundered here by ignoring us. cantwell has her work cut out for her. she’s popular in some circles , but there’s alotta room for improvment. still, the dems rule seattle
Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 17:12 utc | 18
My take on Roberts is that he is a political hack, not a jurist (like Bolton is a hack not a diplomat) and that this is another proof of Bush’s banana republic regime where plum jobs are granted to reward party hacks.
That said, the die is cast, and (good) generals know which battles not to fight. This one is a waste of time.
Instead let’s keep aiming that red hot poker at Rove’s ass and Libby and – dare I dream it? – Blofeld, er, Cheney.
Posted by: Lupin | Jul 20 2005 17:14 utc | 19
last night i was stunned into submission/doom/bordering depression over this roberts news. if all else fails in the future we can form a militia. maybe this is the beginning of the end, nah that happened already .no it’s not, yes it is, drip drip drip
whats a girl to do. yeh i know where i’d go w/ a time machine today. back a few centuries to the place i was born in this life. wandering around west marin w/some miwok indians. nice weather, lots of seafood, pretty baskets, take my mind away
waves/reyes from the point
Posted by: annie | Jul 20 2005 17:24 utc | 20
Not one comment thus far on Billmon’s clever connection to perhaps the best political film staring a major Hollywood actor (Tim Robbins)? (Yes, I liked “Bob Roberts” was even better than “Bullworth.”) John Roberts doesn’t sing folk songs and he’s not running for an elected office (at least not one in the traditional sense), but as Billmon points out, there are plenty of similarities beyond the name. Where’s Gore Vidal when you need him?
Posted by: Bragan | Jul 20 2005 20:22 utc | 21
Billmon – I read up from that source you linked to, and found this horrendous case that I remember very well going down across the 1990s and into 2001
In private practice, Roberts has often represented corporations in suits against private individuals or the government. He represented Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., in its successful petition to the Supreme Court arguing that a worker with carpal tunnel syndrom is not disabled such that she is entitled to accommodation at work under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Roberts took the position that Ella Williams, an automobile assembly line worker, was not covered by the ADA, even though she was fired because carpal tunnel syndrome – which she acquired as a result of activities she was required to perform as part of her job – prevented her from doing all of the tasks required by her job.
p.10
Report of the Alliance for Justice:
Opposition to the Confirmation of John G. Roberts…
The court rejected respondent’s arguments that gardening, doing housework, and playing with children are major life activities. On what logic? The ruling says that the SCOTUS was convinced based on records from passage of the ADA that said Congress found there to be 43 million Americans with disabilities as of the late 1980s. And based on that, they reasoned their way to the idea that a woman who lost the ability to work because of injuries caused by that work could not be defined as disabled, because (get this trick!) most Americans don’t need to do her job, and so her job is not a major life activity. Clever, no? Never mind that one’s job is usually the biggest life activity we have as adults.
What this means is that while he was still just a lawyer appearing before SCOTUS, John G. Roberts convinced all nine justices to rule that that the following activities are not “major life activities”
• gardening
• doing housework
• playing with children
• doing one’s job
What will he convince them of if he actually becomes a colleague? If losing the ability to play with one’s children is not a major life activity, then other frivolities such as listening to music, dancing and singing must be right out. Sex without procreation? Not sure how they’d define this as not a “major life activity” but I wouldn’t feel too comfortable that anything but your mere production of baby-making goodies is actually protected by theADA. Eating, now that would probably cause resistance, but remember, as long as one can take goop through a feeding tube, well, it’s just like eyeglasses – No Disability! Are you thinking what I’m thinking… maybe the Terry Schiavo controversy was just the next stage in the Republican plans to make the Americans with Disabilities Act a leftover, vestigial organ of the work environment. That sure would help explain Frist’s “definitely high functioning” online Schiavo diagnosis.
allow me to summarize:
John G. Roberts doesn’t think you have a right to work a few years and be left healthy enough to do housework.
John G. Roberts doesn’t think you have a right after a few years of work to be left healthy enough to play with your children.
John G. Roberts doesn’t believe that your job needs to leave you healthy enough to keep that job.
John G. Roberts doesn’t believe that you have a right to be left healthy enough to grow food.
Would you like to guess what was defined as a major life activity? Brushing your teeth… Whew!
These nasty frat-bastards actually ruled that because Ms. William’s (and her doctors) testified that she could not lift weights of over 10 pounds, that meant she could lift weights of under ten pounds and so was not actually disabled as far as “lifting” goes. ALL 9 JUSTICES were convinced of this by Roberts (and whoever backs him). Can we really afford to allow our court to start mainlining Roberts on a daily basis?
John G. Roberts sounds like a serious, true-believing, heartless monster. How ‘bout we argue this shit out loud. Playing with your children??? Is there nothing holy to these fetus fetishists? Rove is not going to un-burn himself while we point out that Roberts is not a man but a cog. Look, the Toyota Manufacturing Kentucky v. Williams case was massively dissillusioning for people who once felt like Toyota was saving the Kentucky economy. I’d say the time is right to air this smell out once again on a national stage. So please refer back to that list of things that Roberts says are optional, peripheral, unprotected.
The man is a psychopath – no natural sympathy for the human.
Posted by: citizen | Jul 20 2005 21:50 utc | 22
billmon wrote “…right of Randall Terry’s goons to scream at and spit on women trying to enter abortion clinics.” the women are trying to enter doctors’ offices, not “abortion clinics.” this should be standard d terminology.
Posted by: mc | Jul 21 2005 10:27 utc | 23