Monday, August 08, 2005

John G. Roberts at a Glance

The following info on John Roberts, the Bush “pick” for the U.S. Supreme Court, points out in no-uncertain of terms just exactly how much trouble this nation will be in when Roberts is “installed” on that court by an acquiescent congress. Every law ever put on the books that had people at the core of “intent” will one by one be eliminated.

Every law that has, at least in part, protected people from the over-reaching of government and government intrusion, as well as those laws that protected people from corporate greed, and that provided people with some semblance of recourse for corporate harm done will be eliminated. One only need
look at Roberts historic positions on the rights of people vs. the rights of government and corporations to know and understand this.

The neo-con/neo-liberal corporate cabal that put Bush/Cheney in the positions they now hold, along with their “theocratic ideologue” cheerleaders, have been after control of the supreme court for decades. It looks as if they will finally be getting what they want if Roberts is in fact installed on that court. And quite frankly, I don’t see Roberts not being confirmed by the Senate. Not with everyone painting Roberts as the “all American boy” like he has been.

Roberts will in fact join in with the others on that court who are in process of re-writing our Constitution, giving even more unrestricted power to Bush/Cheney; and putting the corporate war machine in even more control over our daily lives--And all under the “illusion” of the “rule of law.”

The final blow to the German people, that assured them a total dictatorship, was when Hitler and the Nazi’s took over the German courts—which then turned around and gave Hitler every thing he wanted, and it was all “legal.”

Take a long hard look at what
Bush/Cheney & Co., Inc. has been and is doing in terms of our courts—what is the difference between now and Germany in the 30’s when Hitler and the Nazi’s took over the German courts? Both created the illusion of following the nation’s “rule of law.” That gave Hitler the “illusion” of legality in the minds of the German people for all he was doing and his subsequent invasion of Poland, touching off WWII. Bush, much like Hitler, is taking over our courts in the same manner—and our “Poland” is Iraq and the “war on terror.”

Like Hitler and the Nazi’s, Bush has put into motion plans for martial law if we are “attacked.”
Posse Comitatus—will become a thing of the past and relegated to the dust-bin of history if Bush/Cheney has their way. Already the military is involved with internal spying on us. It’s just a short step to troops on our streets. With Scalia, Rehnquist et al on the court, with the addition Roberts on the court, they will put the stamp of “legality” on whatever Bush/Cheney do and say—so much for the “rule of law” and welcome to the death of democracy, American style. So much for "checks and balances" as they will be gone.

But, enough from me, for now—take a look at Roberts and then, above all, do not be silent about this. Drive your senator’s nuts with letters and phone calls demanding they reject Roberts, period! Will it do any good? I don’t know at this point in time; but what I do know is that we cannot be silent and make those calls and write those letters we must. We must also make whatever plans are needed to attend the
mass rally in Washington, Sept. 24-26. See you there.--Jack

Roberts at a Glance

John Roberts has been a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for only two years and was a corporate law firm lawyer for most of his career. He has a sparse public record, making it difficult to evaluate his fitness for the Supreme Court. Where he does have a record, however, Roberts fails to show a commitment to fundamental civil and constitutional rights, both in his role as a Deputy Solicitor General and judge.

School Desegregation: Roberts argued that Congress could pass a law preventing all federal courts from ordering busing to achieve school desegregation under any circumstances, a position even more extreme that that advanced by Theodore Olson and adopted by the Reagan Administration.
(Memo from John Roberts, 2/15/84)

Access to Justice:
Roberts argued that Congress should strip the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on cases regarding school prayer, abortion, busing for school desegregation, and other issues, a position even more extreme that that advanced by Theodore Olson and adopted by the Reagan Administration.
(Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Affirmative Action: Roberts argued that affirmative action programs were bound to fail because they required "the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates."
(Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Voting Rights: Roberts helped promote the Reagan administration's efforts to severely limit the circumstances under which minorities could bring suit under the Voting Rights Act.
(New York Times, 8/3/05)

Immigrants' Rights: Roberts criticized a Supreme Court ruling striking down a Texas law that had allowed school districts to exclude children of undocumented immigrants.
(Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Civil Liberties: In a recently-decided case brought by a Guantanamo Bay prisoner, Judge Roberts joined a ruling holding that the government could try terrorism suspects without granting them basic due process protections.
(Opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 2005)

Religious Liberty:
Roberts argued against clear First Amendment protections for religious liberty and in favor of officially sponsored school prayer at graduation ceremonies before the Supreme Court, which rejected his argument.
(Amicus brief in Lee v. Weisman, 1992)

Title IX: Roberts argued to narrow the reach of Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.
(Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Sex Discrimination: Roberts argued that the Justice Department should not intervene on behalf of female prisoners who were discriminated against in a job-training program, contradicting even the views of extremely conservative Civil Rights Division head, William Bradford Reynolds.
(Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Rights of the Disabled: Roberts criticized as "judicial activism" a court's order requiring a sign-language interpreter for a hearing-impaired public school student.
(Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Rights of the Accused: Roberts sought to expand the ability of prosecutors and police to question suspects out of the presence of their attorneys.
(Washington Post, 7/27/05)

Reproductive Freedom: Roberts urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision granting women the right to choose.
(Brief in Rust v. Sullivan, 1991)

Environmental Protection: As a judge, Roberts authored a dissent arguing that the Endangered Species Act may be unconstitutional as applied in that case. Worse, this case indicated that he may subscribe to the very dangerous new "federalist" views of limited congressional power to protect the environment and the rights of individual Americans.
(Dissent in Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 2003)

Executive Power: As a judge, Roberts has shown enormous deference to the executive and an expansive view of executive power. In one case, for example, he would have gone farther than his colleagues on the court and allowed the Bush Administration retroactively to eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear claims against Iraq by American soldiers who had been tortured there as POWs during the Gulf War, at a time when Iraq was considered a terrorist state.
(Opinion in Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2005)

Excessive Arrest Procedures: Roberts ruled against a 12 year-old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation.
(Opinion in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, 2004)

Right to Privacy: As a Reagan Department of Justice official, Roberts derided what he called the "so-called" right to privacy, asserting “such an amorphous right is not to be found in the Constitution."
(Bloomberg News, 8/3/05 )


Blogger Edward said...

This "judge" Roberts is a freaking Wackmobile. He's obviously an errand boy that will dutifully carry out the ultra right wing agenda no matter who gets trampled in the process. In fact, he's so busy pleasing his Massahs that he has no time to instill basic discipline and respect with his son. I still get a laugh after seeing that little spoiled brat run around the stage like an idiot and then bite his mother. Yeah, that's the type of leadership we need. NOT!

Mon Aug 08, 06:29:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home