So the person that W. nominated for Supreme Court Justice is a conservative. Be still my beating heart. Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is someone that mainstream media is making out to be mysterious, not much is known about him, etc. This is not true. If you go to the Progress for America web site you can see all of the endorsements of him from various senators and politicians on either side of the political divide. Don't let it fool you. This is nomination is not about finding someone neutral, its all about abortion. I think that's a major issue, but it shouldn't be THE ISSUE. As a woman, I find that hard to say, because its my uterus that will be affected by whatever the Supreme Court decides. First and foremost, the American people should be seeking a Supreme Court Justice that is dedicated to human rights issues. That means the rights of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, the war on terror, issues of discrimination and rights to healthcare and economic justice (foreign and domestic), gay rights and seperation of church and state.

If this guy is so mysterious then we shouldn't give him the job.

Or is he?

Another Activist Judge
Turkey Supreme
Judge Nominee Details/Biography
The Stakes in Roberts Nomination

This last link is from The Nation and contains this interesting tidbit:

"Whatever Judge Roberts's performance in his interview with the President, whatever his sterling report card as litigator and jurist, we can be sure there was only one acceptable answer to the Guantánamo essay question, and the judge gave it. He voted, along with his two appeals court colleagues, all three of them Reagan or Bush appointees, against Geneva Convention protections for Guantánamo captives, in scathing language ordering the military tribunals forward, empowering the President, and the President alone, to determine those prisoners' fate."

Got kids?? Well, read this:
"Perhaps most telling is Roberts's brief track record on the federal bench on individual rights, a threshold issue not just for the left but conservative libertarians. A few years back, Washington, DC, police arrested a child for eating a single french fry on the Metro, during a zero-tolerance crackdown on subway-rule violators: arrrested her, handcuffed her, fingerprinted her, threw her in the back of a squad car and held that 12-year-old in lockup for three hours. The child's mother sensibly pointed out in a lawsuit that an adult committing the same offense would have been issued a ticket, not treated like a dangerous felon. Judge Roberts rejected the mother's plea for sanity: Arresting a 12-year-old like a suspect on Cops for eating on the subway, Roberts wrote, advanced "the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts." Even in red states, parents may not spare much enthusiasm for a judge who would lock up their 12-year-old for public consumption of McDonald's fries. "

Nice, right? Do we want to be that kind of country that locks kids up for eating french fries on the subway? Is that the family values that everyone keeps talking about?

Also, is it a conflict of interest that this Judge has donated money to Presidential Bush's campaign? ALso, I have heard he was one of the lawyers that argued the case for Bush in Florida so that he could eventually become president. ( I have not been able to confirm this info, if you have, please forward the information to me).

If all of you ladies, children, homosexuals, minorities, etc. are feeling the fear that only President Bush can inspire, check out MoveOn.org for a place to contact your local senator to oppose his nomination. Also, NARAL has an online Supreme Court Action Kit.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment