Blog Master G

Word. And photos, too.

Blog Master G random header image

Stop Roberts

Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 · 7 Comments

Roberts Has Solid Conservative Credentials: “As a private lawyer, the Buffalo, N.Y., native represented Toyota at the Supreme Court, winning limits on disabled workers’ claims.” Who fights against disabled workers? Is anyone really that heartless? Maybe John Roberts has never known anyone who’s been disabled.

In the past weeks, Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court –- someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. But last night, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to fill her post on the Supreme Court.

We’ve got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be “overruled,” and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

Join me in signing MoveOn’s petition to let our Senators know we expect them to oppose John Roberts right now at:


Tags: politics

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Anonyomus Coward // Jul 20, 2005 at 11:48 am

    Not sure if you can deny Roberts the confirmation just because you disagree with him. Besides many people voted for the guy who nominated Roberts.

  • 2 Gabe // Jul 20, 2005 at 11:55 am

    anonymous coward-

    why not? if confirmed, he’ll be passing judgments that affect all of us for many years to come. why should i accept something just because he who’s in office because 51% of the population voted for him suggests it?

    i don’t think so. that’s not what democracy is about.

  • 3 Jordan // Jul 20, 2005 at 12:36 pm

    Has he fought to limit disabled worker claims? Sure. Has he fought to for welfare recipients whose benefits had been cut? Yep, he’s done that too.

    Feinstein supported Roberts nomination to the D.C. Circuit and says she’ll support him again if he passes the RvW litmus test.

    Roberts is moderate conservative and probably a decent choice with the current administration. Look at the make-up of the whitehouse and congress, do you really think we’re going to see a moderate liberal up there?

  • 4 Milhouse // Jul 20, 2005 at 1:30 pm


    Your energies are best applied elsewhere. The “people” have little voice in the matter. Sure, we can all lobby our senators and promise not to vote for them if they confirm this guy. For NYers, that means voting for a Republican since we already have two Dems and Hillary ain’t going anywhere. Even if that works, W is the president, and he gets the right to choose someone else. It’s not like Howard Dean gets next dibs.

    Your original post reveals some ignorance of the way lawyers work. They work for whomever pays their bills. Sure they probably tend towards a certain perspective, but I’ve known some powerful DC liberal lawyers who have worked as hard as they could for companies/organizations that sell cigarettes, tainted blood and poison baby food. Just because he represented Toyota doesn’t mean he thinks the ADA is unconstitutional.

    Unless this guy is morally or intellectually bankrupt, neither of which seems likely, we’re probably not going to get anywhere. Let’s use our energy, time and money on more important things, like getting better people elected into the positions that control these issues.


  • 5 Gabe A_nderson // Jul 20, 2005 at 1:48 pm


    re: “ignorance of the way lawyers work,” i know money talks, but that’s no excuse. if you know “powerful DC liberal lawyers who have worked as hard as they could for companies/organizations that sell cigarettes, tainted blood and poison baby food,” then shame on them.

    if they’re so powerful and liberal, then why would they sacrifice their morals to work for such causes in exchange for some greenbacks they probably don’t even need? no liberal i’ve ever known would stoop to that low.

    i know that to some extent, we’re all part of the capitalist machine and probably contribute to causes we don’t support in round-about ways, but gimme a break — directly fighting for a company whose causes you don’t believe in tells me that you don’t really care about the people the companies are hurting.


    thanks for the perspective. i didn’t realize feinstein is OK with this tool.

  • 6 anonymous coward // Jul 20, 2005 at 2:48 pm

    Gabe, what I meant to ask was — is “disagreement on issues” a “valid excuse” to deny confirmation? Historically, are people usually denied because of issues or because of personal embarassment?

  • 7 Milhouse // Jul 20, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    Gabe –

    What I’m trying to illustrate is the mindset of the pool of applicants for the position. Most of the very talented lawyers I’ve known are good because they argue the facts, the precedents, and the laws — regardless of morality.

    Frankly I think that’s the kind of person that ought to be a judge. I want someone who bases their decisions on the law, not on who they feel deserves it the most. Otherwise there will never be any standards to which we can adhere, only the moving targets of whims of those in power at the time. The latter is great when your guy is the one in charge, but really sucks when someone like Bush is in the big chair.

    So I don’t put much weight on the arguments Roberts has made in the past, as he’s basically been doing what a good lawyer should — making an argument based upon the facts, precedents and laws that support the person who signs his paycheck. I would instead look to see how faithful he has been to the law when making his judicial decisions.

    That’s much harder to do, and an analysis that neither “side” in this debate seems willing to do. It seems that most people try to predict where on the spectrum a justice ends up by looking at the arguments they’ve made as lawyers, and that’s probably why the common wisdom seems to be wrong so often. It’s their judicial philosophy that is more important.

    Jordan –

    I’m not sure your question can really be answered because it’s so hard to understand the motivations of politicians, but my guess is that personal embarassments are “discovered” whenever a group wants to deny a person based upon their disagreement over issues. It’s much less controversial to tell your constituents that Mr. X can’t be a justice because he sexually harassed a coworker than it is to tell people you disagree with his views on abortion.