Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why Obama voted against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by NEPatriot, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. NEPatriot

    NEPatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Everybody knows why Obama wants to see a latino women to be a SC Judge. Obama used a different standard when he didn't want to see Robert IN SC. Here were his reasons:

    Why Obama Voted Against Roberts - WSJ.com

     
  2. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Obama could have used far few words:

     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  3. State

    State In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Hey, that's "latina," NEP.
     
  4. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Oh, I don't know... sounds like pretty good reasons to me.
     
  5. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    The "rule of law" of the U.S. constitution used to permit slavery and denied women the right to vote. Ducking behind the Constitution is not necessarily always good.
     
  6. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    But those laws were changed, and not by activist judges. What Obama is basically saying is that he wants judges to make law arbitrarily.
     
  7. State

    State In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Yeah, I read that too. It's all about empathy. Nothing about the Constitution.

    Obama doesn't want a referee, but a cheerleader for left of center causes.

    But when it comes to the Second Amendment they become uber strict constructionists.
     
  8. State

    State In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    When was Dred Scott? 1857? Universal women's suffrage in the Nineteenth Amendment? 1920?

    Think you can come up with examples AFTER Henry Ford Model T's were in circulation, knee jerk godef? Pathetic.

    Of course the most pertinent example to prove your point would be Roe in 1973. But killing babies doesn't apparently get you provoked enough to include. But that decision, which I think was erroneous, was based on finding a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

    BTW, top liberal legal scholars, like Laurence Tribe at Harvard, no longer defend abortion on the grounds Roe was decided on.
     
  9. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Sure how about construction here in liberal Massachusetts today? I can't think of how many times I've been in the middle of a dirty, grungy job when some super would come along and imply 'What are you doing? We got Brazilians and Puerto Ricans for that.' Blacks are still largely under-represented in non-union construction as far as my 20 years in the field have shown. The absence of women I can understand. Most every job in construction requires some physical strength, but race doesn't play a role in being strong enough to get the job done and believe me I've met my share of dumb white people in the trades.

    I have a Bachelor's degree. After banging my head against the wall for 3 years I decided to give myself a dramatic raise (I mean 4 times as much money) and abandon the career I went to school for, for the job I did part time for my dad as a teen. Sure it sucks right now, but recessions don't last forever and when times are normal the money's good and when times are booming, its often fantastic; but it really only ever gets fantastic for us white guys.
     
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,150
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ratings:
    +537 / 6 / -2

    Except for the fact that you're not supposed to vote against a nominee because of ideology. You're supposd to vote on their qualifications.
     
  11. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    A strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution says a Senator could reject an SC nominee because he doesn't like the color of his hair.

    Its obvious that strict constructionism is only important to you some of the time. IE when it'll keep Democrats or their ideas out.
     
  12. State

    State In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    You obviously haven't been out to Silicon Valley where white guys are rarely seen.
     
  13. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +79 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Robert Bork says hi........when he stops laughing......
     
  14. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Excuse me, so what? Were the books closed, say around 1940, and no more amendments could be changed?

    And what's with the name calling and insults? How is this any less knee-jerk than my comment? Are your arguments so weak that you have to prop them up by trying to assasinate my character? Have the balls to let your arguments stand for themselves, already. Typical conservative. :eek: Oh, sorry, I insulted you!

    How about the amendment that rescinded prohibition? Wasn't that later?
    And just because you personally don't agree with Roe vs Wade doesn't make it any less valid; it is still an amendment to the constitution. So that's another weak argument.

    If top liberal legal scholars no longer defend abortion on the grounds Roe was decided on, then let them begin what needs to be done to try to rescind that amendment. That would be their constitutional right. The constituion is a living document.
     
  15. godef

    godef In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    That's is nonsensical. Ideology has enormous impact on qualification. Obama didn't believe that Robert was qualified, because he felt he was not in fact inpartial but always favored the strong, therefore Robert's ideology caused him to be unqualified.
     
  16. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Oh, please! Obama, as well as many other Dems, didn't vote for Roberts because he was not an left-leaning activist judge. The silly excuse given by Obama is just that, silly - unfortunately many people still believe everything he says.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>