<center><font size="3">QueEx Thinking Out Loud</center></font size>
<center>Recent News Reports:</center>
<font size="3">Why is that I keep getting these feelings that these presumably "Negatives" against John Roberts that keep coming out is part of a carefully orchestrated plan to <u>ensure the confirmation</u> of a staunchly conservative jurist to the U.S. Supreme Court ??? Maybe I've succumbed to conspiratorialism. Somehow, however, I just cannot believe that in the vetting process, the Bush administration doesn't know all there is to know about John Roberts. Therefore, it knew about each of the revelations (and, maybe, more to come) before they have come out.
Of course, everyone knows that a lawyer will take on cases that may disagree with their personal beliefs on the subject. Hence, a lawyer may represent an anti-abortion group -- yet personally feel that abortion is wrong. Lawyers represent criminal defendants every day whom they suspect, if not know, have in fact committed heinous crimes. A lawyer's duty to represent his client to the best of his ability transcends his personal feelings -- at least those are the Ethical Rules of every state bar -- and to violate those canons of ethics can mean losing one's right to practice law.
On the other hand, while there are canons of ethics which say a jurist (trial judge or appellate court justice) should not allow his "Personals" to enter into the decision making process, everyone knows that it happens -- which is why Bush (as has every other president) haa sought to appoint judges with certain known beliefs.
With as much pressure from the Right as Bush is under, I cannot phanthom that his first (and, perhaps only) nomination to the Supreme Court would be anything other than to the Right's satisfaction. GW wouldn't toy with the Right's machinations with his poll numbers tumbling, Iraq in a seemingly quagmire, the domestic scene not exemplary, mid-term elections around the corner, and a strong need to create his legacy by stamping right-wing conservatism on the Supreme Court by nominating a flaming liberal. Wouldn't do it. Defies all logic.
All this leads me to believe one thing: John Roberts is as right-wing as Bush and his right-wing buddies know him to be. All of this apparent-liberalism we see in recent revelations is nothing more than a ruse (the lawyer Roberts just represented his clients well but doesn't believed in their causes) and it will be hard as hell for center and left senators to credibly oppose Roberts, unless, however, something falls out of the closet to give them reason to vote no.
Talking about the "Perfect Storm" ... we're watching it unfold before our very eyes.
Of course, I could be dead wrong. If so, confirm Roberts ass today !!!
QueEx
<center>Recent News Reports:</center>
- John Roberts helped Gay Rights group overturn a Colorado referendum on gays;
- As deputy solicitor general, in a case involved whether an 1871 law to suppress the work of the Ku Klux Klan could be applied to abortion protesters who tried to block access to clinics. Roberts did not defend the violent tactics but argued that the federal anti-discrimination law did not apply to the trespassing or blockading of the clinics by anti-abortion groups. Anti-abortion groups angry;
- Roberts Faith questioned.
<font size="3">Why is that I keep getting these feelings that these presumably "Negatives" against John Roberts that keep coming out is part of a carefully orchestrated plan to <u>ensure the confirmation</u> of a staunchly conservative jurist to the U.S. Supreme Court ??? Maybe I've succumbed to conspiratorialism. Somehow, however, I just cannot believe that in the vetting process, the Bush administration doesn't know all there is to know about John Roberts. Therefore, it knew about each of the revelations (and, maybe, more to come) before they have come out.
Of course, everyone knows that a lawyer will take on cases that may disagree with their personal beliefs on the subject. Hence, a lawyer may represent an anti-abortion group -- yet personally feel that abortion is wrong. Lawyers represent criminal defendants every day whom they suspect, if not know, have in fact committed heinous crimes. A lawyer's duty to represent his client to the best of his ability transcends his personal feelings -- at least those are the Ethical Rules of every state bar -- and to violate those canons of ethics can mean losing one's right to practice law.
On the other hand, while there are canons of ethics which say a jurist (trial judge or appellate court justice) should not allow his "Personals" to enter into the decision making process, everyone knows that it happens -- which is why Bush (as has every other president) haa sought to appoint judges with certain known beliefs.
With as much pressure from the Right as Bush is under, I cannot phanthom that his first (and, perhaps only) nomination to the Supreme Court would be anything other than to the Right's satisfaction. GW wouldn't toy with the Right's machinations with his poll numbers tumbling, Iraq in a seemingly quagmire, the domestic scene not exemplary, mid-term elections around the corner, and a strong need to create his legacy by stamping right-wing conservatism on the Supreme Court by nominating a flaming liberal. Wouldn't do it. Defies all logic.
All this leads me to believe one thing: John Roberts is as right-wing as Bush and his right-wing buddies know him to be. All of this apparent-liberalism we see in recent revelations is nothing more than a ruse (the lawyer Roberts just represented his clients well but doesn't believed in their causes) and it will be hard as hell for center and left senators to credibly oppose Roberts, unless, however, something falls out of the closet to give them reason to vote no.
Talking about the "Perfect Storm" ... we're watching it unfold before our very eyes.
Of course, I could be dead wrong. If so, confirm Roberts ass today !!!
QueEx
