Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: Actually, We've Already Won (350 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A+ (none)
    Roberts may indeed try on the aluminum hat when he thinks nobody else is looking. But he is certainly not the ranting, Bible thumping, Kool-Aid bonger that the lunatic fringe believes it so richly deserves.

    I don't think that there are any Russians, and there ain't no Yanks... just corporate criminals playing with tanks. - Michael Been

    by gp39m on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:31:01 AM PDT

    •  Lunatic Fringe Will Be Happy (4.00)
      They want someone against abortion rights, the environment, individual rights, and civil rights. They got him. I don't see how they could have asked for more.

      I have no idea what we won or conservative extremists lost beyond the right to try a filibuster. We'll see how that works out.

      Fox News: We Report, You Die

      by Reino on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hang on (none)
        On what do you base your comment that Roberts is "against civil rights?"

        Rather extreme remark.

        "The American people will trust the Democratic Party to defend America when they believe that Democrats will defend other Democrats." Wesley Clark

        by The Termite on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:00:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  dkospedia (none)
          For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest. (Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).

          In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001). He also argued against Title IX as applied to the NCAA in NCAA v. Smith.

          For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort--in the wake of the 1980 Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden--to make it easier for minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted under the Voting Rights Act.

          Fox News: We Report, You Die

          by Reino on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:30:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you say that? (none)
      What evidence do you use to say that Roberts is not nuts?

      "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw

      by Shygetz on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:39:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not saying he isn't nuts (none)
        Just less nuts than some of the bona fide kooks whose names had been tossed about. Again, I'm not doing cartwheels over this choice, but there are a lot of people down here in the Ozarks who still think John Fucking Ashcroft would make an excellent Chief Justice when that time comes. Now that's wack.

        I don't think that there are any Russians, and there ain't no Yanks... just corporate criminals playing with tanks. - Michael Been

        by gp39m on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:40:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sadly, less nuts=more effective wingnut (none)
          Thomas is singularly ineffective on the Court, often taking positions that are so off-the-wall he repels other justices who might be open to agreeing with his results.  That's a good thing (except to the extent we might have hoped for another Souter from Poppy Bush).

          If Roberts is in most of his judicial positions another Scalia (as everything about his record strongly suggests), only one who writes in a much less in-your-face-you're-an-idiot tone, that makes him likely to win Kennedy's vote in cases where Scalia might well have lost it.  That's not a good thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site