Swing State Project: SCOTUS: Ethically Challenged John Roberts (Another Partisan Hack)
SCOTUS: Ethically Challenged John Roberts (Another Partisan Hack)
Posted by Tim TagarisAn ethically challenged lawyer appointed by an ethically challenged “win-at-all-cost” administration.
U.S. v. Smithfield Foods – Roberts representing a pork processing company against Clean Water Act violations. This is what the court had to say about Roberts the litigator:
“The mischaracterization and distortion of this Memorandum is frustrating to the court. Quotes are being taken out of context, and it appears that words are being conveniently deleted or added for purposes of argument.” “A totally misleading argument presented to this court.”
I am not sure the amount of cases he has argued is very compelling if that is the way that he argues them.
UPDATE: Roberts on Roe v. Wade — Brief field in Rust v. Sullivan
“We continue to believe that Roe was wrongfully decided and should be overturned.” “[T]he Court’s conclusions i Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”
UPDATE (Bob) John Aravosis has info from NARAL Pro-Choice America on John Roberts and the huge oppo file from Alliance for Justice on John Roberts.
UPDATE (Tim) Aravosis has more, including Roberts’ weak resume, and militant crusade to erode a woman’s right to privacy, choice, and apparently right to live free from violence.
UPDATE (Tim) Jeralyn already debunks the Right’s first talking point, that he was approved by the Senate to the Appeals Court overhwlemingly.
UPDATE (Bob) Here is PFAW on John Roberts (PDF)
UPDATE (Bob) Update the dkosopedia page on John Roberts and the Wikipedia page on John Roberts.
UPDATE (Bob) The John G. Robert’s 2003 Confirmation Hearings
UPDATE (Bob Chris Bowers is right, John Roberts is a Partisan Hack:
The Bush administration has clearly stepped up the nomination of John Roberts in order to deflect attention from Karl Rove. Really, it makes sense. One partisan hack is deflecting attention from another.
Karl Rove is a lifetime Republican operative. John Roberts has been filing briefs and providing legal support for recounts (Roberts worked for Bush-Cheney 2000 in Florida) on behalf of Republicans for two decades. John Roberts is a partisan hack taking the heat for another partisan hack. He has only been a judge for two years. He has been a partisan Republican hack for twenty years.
The Bush administration was elected by the Supreme Court, and now it is electing a member of its campaign team to the Supreme Court in order to deflect attention away from ethics violations by the head of its campaign team, Karl Rove. The is partisan hackery at its best. The Bush administration has decided to treat the Supreme Court as an ambassadorship.
And so the fight is enjoined–the Bush administration wants to nominate a partisan hack who helped elect Bush to the Supreme Court, which elected Bush, in order to deflect attention from possible the possibly treasonous activates of another partisan hack who led the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004. And so this is our fight–the Supreme Court is not the Northern Mariana Islands. The Supreme Court is not a way to reward those who helped get you elected. The Supreme Court is not a way to help deflect attention from the ethics violations of those who helped elect you. The Supreme Court is not a place for partisan hacks, but the Bush administration thinks it is. And so this is our fight–country over partisanship. And so it begins.
Words fail me tonight. The future of this country is not looking pretty, not at all.
I hope our kids can fix all the damage this administration is causing to our country, our government, our election process, our reputation, our economy, our foreign relations, and soon now, our women and their right to control their own bodies – or perhaps, our grandkids will inherit this mess to fix.
Sigh. How many times do we have to go through these cycles, how many times must we fight to win the same battles again, to learn the lessons of history that show repression and corruption leads to the end of empire? Once again, it seems, once again….
No Responses