The Talking Lion

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Stay focused...

Ok. So George just announced that his nominee would be Judge John Roberts, Solicitor General under Bush (41), and Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2003‚Äźpresent.

He is virulently
pro-criminalization/anti-choice. And because of that stance among others, he is wrong for America. (He wants religion in highschools, he's anti-environment and he's pro-secrecy. He has an impressive (see: not really, he's only been a judge for little over 2 YEARS!) resume, but he is a partisan hack. Read more about him: here, here and here.)



Before we get lost in the details of just why this man is wrong for the Supreme Court, it is important that we understand this nomination for what it is: a distraction.

There was whispers around DC that Bush was in the market for a real nominee (someone that would have support on both aisles and would be easily confirmed even in the warring Senate). But, right now there's several big time scandals that need to be covered-up, in the eyes of BushCo. So BushCo is hoping that Robert's is enough of a wing-nut to get us liberals to switch gears and stop talking about Rove and stop talking about the Downing St. Memo. (and, you know, the stuff in Iraq)

We simply cannot afford to lose focus here.

There is
action we can all take to harass our senators into not confirming Roberts; we do need to ration our energies to keep this jerk off the Big Bench. But what's more important right now is the need to keep stoking the fires that are currently sweeping through the White House.

Roberts is damage control. We need to keep doing damage.

Amanda has a great post about what our D's need to do.


  • wow, one single issue and the open-minded left goes off on a hissy fit. i said to myself a few seconds ago, "self, i bet you could go to the talking lion right now and see them blog about how Roberts is a bad nominee and bad for the supreme court, even though we are all the same age, of similar levels of political study, and thus they could not possibly have enough knowledge on this particular jurist to make a judgment on his nomination a mere 20 hours after the announcement." Apparently, I was wrong.

    By Blogger Kevin, at Wednesday, 20 July, 2005  

  • wow, one single issue and the open-minded left goes off on a hissy fit.

    Firstly, Roberts is a nominee for SCOTUS; I don't know how to tell you this, but it's kind of a big deal.

    Apparently, I was wrong.

    Um, wait, I think you messed up. If you got "it" wrong that would mean that we did the opposite of what you predicted to yourself. But, I'm assuming you meant to show displeasure at my post for supposedly rushing to judgment on Bush's nominee.

    Well, though we're of the same age, it seems that one of us needs to look around those links I provided to find out exaclty why the Left is upset about Bush's choice. Also, Roberts has been on the shortlist for awhile and the research has been done ahead of time. From his career as a lawyer (his career as a jurist is a little over 2 years) it's clear that he is pro-criminalization, anti-environment, pro-buisness, pro-secrecy, anti-privacy. So, becuase of those views, he should not be in the group of 9.

    What my post is about is that Roberts is more political cover-fire than good nominee.

    Bush is using this opportunity to put out (or put off) fires. My message is that we (the left) can fight this nomination as well as continue to stoke the fires Bush is afraid of (Rove, Iraq, Downing St.)

    By Blogger Arun, at Wednesday, 20 July, 2005  

  • yeah, that was a misprint by me, I clicked publish when i thought I was clicking preview, as I had more to say. The single issue in question is abortion, not a judicial nominee, it seems like I may have been unclear.

    Well, the aforementioned one of us has looked at some of these links, and besides the fact that I don't much care anymore about things like this and am trying to just concern myself with political philosophy while I am still young and ambitious (and thus avoid becoming a tool of any political party) , I find your, "the left," etc. concern over Roberts to be quite, quite reactionary. He's only been a judge for 2 years seems to be one thing mentioned, well, so what. Schumer was on Meet the Press basically begging Bush to nominate Orrin Hatch, not a judge. It's not necessary to be a judge before you are a justice on the Supreme Court, in fact, I don't even think you need to be a lawyer (but I am not 100% on this).

    So Roberts is against abortion; he has also said he would uphold the precedent. I guess "the left" doesn't believe him, because he has probably eaten with the president and is thus tainted with the blood of satan.

    Which brings me to the point of me posting in the first place. Screw "the left." You know what else, screw the right. I come to your blog to read what you, Pat, and Sean (though I don't know him) think about issues. Not The Left. If you always think exactly the same as the faceless digital conglomeration you call The Left then fine, this is an awfully nice link site. I would hope this isn't the case. so, Arun, why do you think Roberts is a dangerous man to have on the bench (we need more than what I quote at the end of this post). Why do you think abortion is an important issue, why do you think women should have the right to have this procedure performed, or as others may say have the right to murder an innocent child. How have you come to a distinction between the two? This is important, you can't just take this for granted. Then, continue the same with your other areas of concern: the environment, business (your characterization of this issue being particularly noxious), etc.

    Now, on this issue, you can read the blogs and other people's opinions on his positions, which you admit are mostly from his career as a lawyer, or you can think for yourself - a long and tough thing to do with something so complex I will admit. Now, don't you wonder whether he is looked at in this light because of his own beliefs or what he had to do to serve his clients, as is his right and an integral part of this system. You may hate, for instance, ExxonMobil, but they have a right to council and due process for legal claims, both civil and criminal, in a court of law.

    Finally, I really would love some clarification on this part of your post "From his career as a lawyer (his career as a jurist is a little over 2 years) it's clear that he is pro-criminalization, anti-environment, pro-buisness, pro-secrecy, anti-privacy. So, becuase of those views, he should not be in the group of 9." So, are you saying that he has wongly interpreted law in these areas and is unfit? If so, which cases. Also, how can you be pro-secrecy and anti-privacy, what am I missing - its 230 am where I am.

    By Blogger Kevin, at Wednesday, 20 July, 2005  

  • Kevin,

    I will answer all your questions. However, just not this second as I have prior social engagements. So, your comment is noted; a response is imminent.


    Where are you that its 230am?

    By Blogger Arun, at Wednesday, 20 July, 2005  

  • Ok, first off, I only characterized myself as a member of the left because I am indeed a progressive and thats my team.

    I don't mean it in the way that I am the automaton echo chamber of Democrat/Pinko-Commie talking points, I just happen to hold a set of beliefs that is most closely characterized as belonging to the left side of the debate.

    Anyhoo, I think I answer your question about why I am wary of Roberts in my recent post. So I would direct you to read that; comment as you see fit.

    I would add that if I unfairly cite his lawyer career as evidence of his ideology, the point is that there is little left to assess what kind of judge this Roberts will be. But I discuss all that in my recent post.

    As to why I believe what I do about abortion rights, environmental issues, etc. they deserve entire post's and then some to do my beliefs justice (and I will elucidate my beliefs in due time). But until then there is a wealth of information about why abortion should remain legal and why it should not; look to there for general arguments. My beliefs put me squarely in the "remain legal" camp and my thoughts in the blog will reflect that.

    When there is ample time, I will clear up exactly why I'm pro-choice/anti-criminalization, but for now, while we have a fight on our hands I think it's counterproductive to enumerate just why abortion should remain legal every time the word abortion appears in a post.

    But since you mention it now, I may put up some policy posts on exactly why I believe what I do in the next couple days (perhaps this weekend, when no one reads blogs).

    Also, I meant that he's anti-privacy (in the senes that he doesnt believe its a right given by the Constitution) and pro-government-secrecy (as he was on the Cheney team when Dick wanted to keep the guest list to the meeting that determined enrgy policy secret; it was an outrageous case). But that again is based upon his days as a lawyer.

    I'm thrilled you (and any of our readers) come to this blog at all, let alone coming "to read what you, Pat, and Sean (though I don't know him) think about issues." Thanks for the comments.

    By Blogger Arun, at Thursday, 21 July, 2005  

  • Arun,

    Fair enough on your retort. I was in Ireland for the last 5 weeks studying; now I am in the airport waiting to board my flight, so I will be back on normal time soon enough. I will respond when I get back to the states - right now I am quite tired and preparing for a long day in the air.

    By Blogger Kevin, at Saturday, 23 July, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home