9PM SCOTUS Annoucement

[HoyaDestroya]

A good balanced - from what I have seen- blog on SCOTUS...


www.sctnomination.com/blog/

This guy might very well pass the genius test.

[AustinHoya03]

Here are some selected quotes on Roberts from the AP:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_quotes_6&printer=1;_ylt=AgymzpwKPcQY8cLDipkQn8RAw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-


My own opinion is that from a purely political perspective, this nomination is genius. The left has nothing solid to attack this guy with, so anyone who does looks like an extremist. Moderates on the left are left saying "Uh, well, we'll see what comes out in the confirmation process." It left the media saying the same thing: the NYT, WashPost, and LA Times all took a wait-and-see approach in their op-eds this morning. Meanwhile Bush has everyone on the right (except the crazies) drinking the Kool-Aid.

Now it's time to sit back and wait for Howard Dean's comments on the matter. I'm sure we're all in for some hilarity.

[CAHoya07]

dfw said:

thebin said:

This is on Planned Parenthoods front page....
"The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety."

Anyone get the idea it was more a "fill in the blank" statement that would be applied to ANY nomination whatsoever? That's what advocacy groups do--they preach to the choir. It wouldn't help their image if PP salutes the nominee and wishes him good luck and Godspeed.

Well, sure, of course it was. Any pro-life nominee would have been greeted with the same statement. Likewise, if the tables had been turned, conservative advocacy groups would have the same reaction to any liberal judge.

It's funny, prior to reading this thread I never thought of PP as leaning left or right politically. Must everything be so partisan?

PP provides a valuable service to the community. I think people should see it as that, regardless of where they stand politically.

[EasyEd]

PP supports partial birth abortion. That's extreme. Also, did you ever hear of PP recommending to a client that they put their child up for adoption?

[jerseyhoya34]

PP does not support partial birth adoption. They believe that it should be accessible. There's a subtle, but important, difference. Very few people on the left are pro-abortion or anti-life, in other words. They are pro-choice, however, while Republicans are anti-choice.

They also have fact sheets about adoption available on their website.

[DFW HOYA]

cahoya07 said:

PP provides a valuable service to the community. I think people should see it as that, regardless of where they stand politically.

Good people can agree to disagree on this one.

And beware of PC buzzwords like like "anti-choice". It's like calling an opponent to the death penalty "pro criminal", which is misleading and perjorative. There are Republicans who support abortion rights just as there are Democrats who oppose them.

[jerseyhoya34]

dfw said:

cahoya07 said:

PP provides a valuable service to the community. I think people should see it as that, regardless of where they stand politically.

And beware of PC buzzwords like like "anti-choice". It's like calling an opponent to the death penalty "pro criminal", which is misleading and perjorative. There are Republicans who support abortion rights just as there are Democrats who oppose them.

I'm not sure that any of what you said rebuts my point. Sure, the term I used is politically correct. The question is whether it is more valid than the traditional pro-choice/pro-life dichotomy. I think it is.

When you boil it right down, the abortion question in today's politics boils down to whether you agree or disagree with the Roe decision, which found a Constitution right for women to choose. Some Democrats support the decision and are pro-choice. Some Republicans do not support the decision, so they are pro-life? That makes about as much sense as a three dollar bill. The dichotomy is false if you accept it.

Find me a Democrat who does not favor life. The question is how you define life, and for some Republicans to present some Democrats as murderous folks because they support a woman's right to choose is somewhat insulting and presumptuous. Not to mention that it is profoundly incorrect.

I recognize that there are pro-choice Republicans and "pro-life" Democrats. That's not been an issue in my commentary.

I also think you are wrong to question whether PP provides a valuable service. They serve over five million people every year, providing information to them and other services. If the services were valueless, why do people show up? You can question their moral value, and we'll have to agree to disagree there because that debate won't be resolved, and I don't have a salient position on it. However, to comment that the services aren't in some way valuable is not correct on the face of it.

[DFW HOYA]

jerseyhoya34 said:

I also think you are wrong to question whether PP provides a valuable service.

"Wrong to question?" It's a free country.

And whether the Beltway residents realize it or not, most people out here in "flyover country" don't talk about Roe or worry about Valerie Plame or use phrases like "SCOTUS". Today's water cooler talk was more about the hot weather and the death of James (Scotty) Doohan, not what John Roberts thinks. This may seem trite to the folks who have Drudge, Kos, and Wonkette prominent on their Google toolbar, but a lot of other folks understand that the Republic will somehow endure, no matter what happens on the Hill.

"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."-Dave Barry

[jerseyhoya34]

dfw said:

jerseyhoya34 said:

I also think you are wrong to question whether PP provides a valuable service.

"Wrong to question?" It's a free country.

And whether the Beltway residents realize it or not, most people out here in "flyover country" don't talk about Roe or worry about Valerie Plame or use phrases like "SCOTUS". Today's water cooler talk was more about the hot weather and the death of James (Scotty) Doohan, not what John Roberts thinks. This may seem trite to the folks who have Drudge, Kos, and Wonkette prominent on their Google toolbar, but a lot of other folks understand that the Republic will somehow endure, no matter what happens on the Hill.

"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."-Dave Barry

While you are free to say what you want and express opinions, you most clearly questioned the value of PP, and I most clearly said that you were wrong to question the value in it. The act of questioning or expressing doubts is not the wrong, it is the fact that you questioned them, who provide services to over 5 million people on an annual basis. It is a charge that lacks substance. The fact that you don't rebut about the value of PP with facts, but make a non-related statement about free speech, is quite telling, in light of your most recent criticisms of advocacy groups. It comes across as an ad hoc application of so-called principle.

I should also note that people make value judgments based on what others say. I have made one with your case and have rebutted with a supply/demand-type argument, which is not based on moral values, although it reflects a pro-capitalist bent.

There are all kinds of "free country" situations where free speech is restricted, so the buzzword here is not one that holds up in my view. Why aren't protestors allowed to walk on the South Lawn and approach the WH? Why can't we yell fire in a crowded theatre? What view do we have of people who burn the flag or President in effigy? Why did Admin delete posts that called upon DeGioia to fire Esherick if it is a free country? While your most recent comment does not rise to the level of crying fire in a crowded theatre, I still believe it to be wanting for the unchallenged reasons that I have specified.

I'm not sure how your final points relate to the thread, other than to say that it does not matter to people in flyover country. If you want to talk hot weather, by all means start a thread about hot weather, climate change, and the like. Also, it is thoroughly unsurprising that the majority of people don't discuss this. Half of them don't vote in Presidential elections (ok... 40% in 2004), to say nothing of midterms. I should also note that most of this thread has not been about Roberts' views, but, rather, criticisms of ideas, such as the PP being valueless and extremist.

[kchoya]

How's this for a discussion about Robert's views:

Well, actually it's not a discussion about his views, but rather a link to -- a website designed by the Progress for America group, whatever that it.

I post the link not to argue for or against Roberts (though I am for his confirmation). Rather I put this out there in amazement about the current state of politics when 24 hours after being announced as the nominee for the high court, there's a website like this with video and audio and more. I'm sure there are many more sites out there like this, both pro and con. I just saw an ad on this for Drudge, that's how I found it.

It's amazing how much time and money is wasted on these sorts of things -- think how much money all of these PAC's, interest groups, and political parties will spend to support/oppose this nomination. It's incredible. And that's coming from a government major who interned on Capitol Hill and does have drudge on his Firefox link bar.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

ed said:

PP supports partial birth abortion. That's extreme. Also, did you ever hear of PP recommending to a client that they put their child up for adoption?

PP supports access to all options. They as a practice discourage partial birth abortion because (among other things) it causes a serious health risk to the mother. Their position is not extreme. To be honest it seems like you are grasping at straws. Simply because your view of Planned Parenthood means that you have assumed that they do not offer advice and guidance on adoption, does not mean that this is in fact the case. From what I know of PP they do, in fact, offer information about all options in this case. I also feel that this post is largely non-responsive to what I said about what an extremist group actually is - as opposed to a group that happens to hold one view on a controversial issue.

[Deleted]

dfw said:

jerseyhoya34 said:

I also think you are wrong to question whether PP provides a valuable service.

"Wrong to question?" It's a free country.

And whether the Beltway residents realize it or not, most people out here in "flyover country" don't talk about Roe or worry about Valerie Plame or use phrases like "SCOTUS". Today's water cooler talk was more about the hot weather and the death of James (Scotty) Doohan, not what John Roberts thinks. This may seem trite to the folks who have Drudge, Kos, and Wonkette prominent on their Google toolbar, but a lot of other folks understand that the Republic will somehow endure, no matter what happens on the Hill.

"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."-Dave Barry

AMEN, DFW. The Republic will endure, and in the meantime will someone tell me how to unlock "Hot Coffee" on XBox?

[kchoya]

stpetersburghoya said:

ed said:

PP supports partial birth abortion. That's extreme. Also, did you ever hear of PP recommending to a client that they put their child up for adoption?

PP supports access to all options. They as a practice discourage partial birth abortion because (among other things) it causes a serious health risk to the mother. Their position is not extreme. To be honest it seems like you are grasping at straws. Simply because your view of Planned Parenthood means that you have assumed that they do not offer advice and guidance on adoption, does not mean that this is in fact the case. From what I know of PP they do, in fact, offer information about all options in this case. I also feel that this post is largely non-responsive to what I said about what an extremist group actually is - as opposed to a group that happens to hold one view on a controversial issue.

After seeing Planned Parenthood out protesting Roberts less than 24 hours after his nomination was announced, I think it's quite clear what Planned Parenthood is all about.

You really have to distinguish between the local Planned Parenthood clinics and what the leadership in Washington DC does as far as lobbying, playing politics and denouncing any pro-life nominee to the supreme court. When you see the president of planned parenthood on TV decrying the end of western civilization because John Roberts will be the next associate justice, you wonder if PP really does support access to all options.

[Cambridge]

And if the nominee was a liberal pro-choicer...would you discount everything the Catholic Church does -- because we all know, in that alternative reality, they would be protesting it?

My point is, just because someone protests something they feel threatens their values doesn't make them extreme. It makes them vocal, but certainly not extreme.

[Nevada Hoya]

Roberts has ties to Georgetown in that his wife is an alumna of the Law Center. Got her undergrad degree at Holy Cross, so she would probably want to see the Hoyas play the Crusaders.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

His wife is also a big member in Feminists for Life (i.e. otherwise attractive women who hate Roe). Discuss.

[kchoya]

stpetersburghoya said:

His wife is also a big member in Feminists for Life (i.e. otherwise attractive women who hate Roe). Discuss.

When she gets nominated for the Supreme Court, maybe that would be appropriate.

[Cambridge]

Wait family members are out of bounds? Since when?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

You mean you can't heap abuse on someone because of who they are married to? <coughing> Karl Rove <coughing>

[Deleted]

I heard his wife likes to eat Doritos.

Wait a minute, Saddam likes Doritos!

ROBERTS' WIFE IS A COMMIE!!