Text of remarks by President Bush and Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday, as transcribed by CQ Transcriptions



News stories HERE

I think he's a good choice.

I dont know enough about him. If hes pro life or will be his religious beliefs to the SC thats the last thing any of us need. I will do more research on him today but being that Bush nominated him I am quite sure he wont represewnt my interests

Edited to add that Bush sure used the media on this one and made a big tadoo out of this whole process. Getting a prime time TV slot to announce it? A press converence during the day would have been suffice IMO

Some people have too much power in this world IMO.
(Considering they're just human and make mistakes like everyone.)
(And others may not agree with them but are affected by their decisions.)

Alex I would have to agree with you there considering the SC justice will be there for life (one SC justice right now is 85) Roberts is only 50 so in theory he could be there another 30 years.
I did some brief research on Roberts. I see he has worked with Ken Starr(yep you remember him right?) to overturn Roe vs Wade and seems to have corporate interests at heart. He has opposed clean air rules and was helping coal mining companies to strip mine mountaintops
more info on strip mining mountaintops:
http://www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/facts/mtntop.htm

Those things alone surely dont represent my interests and I wouldnt want someone on the SC that were overturning Roe vs Wade and who didnt have environmental interests at heart

Did you honestly expect anything less from that baboon? Of course he's going to pick someone who has corporate interests at heart. This guy probably has a criminal record to rival W's too. Birds of a feather....

I'm moving to Canada. Who's coming with me?

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid18955.asp

same old debate, just another day

Aww southernboy come on now. Is it because you support Bush and alot of people in here are voicing their opinion of him that doesnt agree with yours?

If you have anything else to add to the debate about Roberts some facts perhaps(I havent had much time to do alot of research) I would always be glad to read it

Actually, I have no opinion of Roberts because I think the Supreme Court is a joke. And no, I don't support Bush. At least not in the way a normal voter would. I support some of the things he is for and there are a ton of things that I do not support(CAFTA being one of those). I am neither liberal or conservative. Some people call me a republicrat. But anywho, I have lost all faith in our Supreme Court ever since they said child pornography was ok as long as it was done in the form of animation. The SC is supposed to enforce constitutional law, not make laws themselves.

Well on that I can agree whole heartedly.
Which is one of my pet peeves on the Bush administration, as they seem to forget seperation of church and state on a regular basis.

another bush basher it is getting old

I am not a Bush basher. In fact DGE and I really went round and round before the last election! However I do not agree with him on all things. Would be strange if I did. One of the things that makes me uneasy about him is his forgettfulness of separtion of church and state. I'm not so sure its forgettfulness either and I DO NOT LIKE IT.

they is no such thing separation of church

Congress can't created a new type of religious. Read the Constitution

CONGRESS can't establist a new religious

David PLEASE read the two posts above. I mean REALLY READ them.


*sigh*

Yes we did go around a few times and all turned out fine I think anyways But I understand what you mean the sep of church and state thats something that doesnt seem to happen much anymore

From:
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist. "





David if you think The bush adminsitraton is not legislating based on christianity you are mistaken. Or dont you remember his "faith based initiative"
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

"On September 22, 2003, the White House announced new rules making $28 billion available to religious charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring. Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry in Metro New York claims "The White House has taken what may be its boldest step yet to blur the constitutional separation of church and state." While the White House announced these controversial new rules, the media hardly paid attention.

While religious charities receive billions of dollars, federal programs are experiencing funding cuts. The largest federally funded after-school program, the $1 billion-a-year 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is threatened with a budget reduction of $400 million for the Fiscal Year 2004. The resulting cuts in Washington D.C. alone could eliminate after-school services for 2,902 District children."

I agree with David. There is not such thing as seperation of Church and state. But there is a such thing as seperation of christianity and state. If you're gonna take Christianity out of everything, then you should take all religions out. Don't tell my child that they cannot learn about God and Christ in school and then turn around and start teaching them about Islam.

Maybe I am not up on how schools work now a days because I dont have children but what school teaches about Islam. I mean public school?

I think private schools such as catholic or jewish or islamic etc should be able to teach about their religion along with the other studies taught in school. However I dont think any religion should be taught in any schools receiving government $$. If I want to teach a religion to my child or not teach one at all thats my choice and it should be done outside public school how and when I choose not inside by someone else..

What disturbs me too is issues such as abortion(which lots of people consider a church issue). Anyway it depends on who is on the Supreme Court as to if this is to be considered legal or not. This is WRONG. There should NOT be any flip flop on these isssues depending on the people who happen to be on the Supreme Court. Once it is decided that should be it. PERIOD. Now, myself, I very seriousely doubt I would get an abortion, except under very extraordinary conditions, however I think it is every womans right to decide this for herself. Bush is letting his religious beliefs dictate what he wants done about this and other issues. If he can get two Justices put on the bench during his term there is no telling what will happen.

I agree. I dont think I would ever get an abortion either however I should have the right to legally and in a secure safe manner. What irks me is if an abortion was made illegal women would still get it done and our sisters daughters etc would perhaps have permanent damage or even die by these back street butchers. Does anyone want that to happen to one of their loved one? I dont
frenchy BTW Roberts is a catholic and of course abortion and contraception is not viewed very "nicely" by the catholic church. I am not "up" on the catholic church of today but I know those practices were highly frowned upon. So considering Roberts is catholic I am sure hes pro life. Although the SC justices are suppose to judge on whether something is legal or not according to our constitution NOT on their own religious beliefs

Then, as now, making abortion illegal neither eliminated the need for abortion nor prevented its practice. In the 1890s, doctors estimated that there were two million abortions a year in the U.S. (compared with one and a half million today). Women who are determined not to carry an unwanted pregnancy have always found some way to try to abort. All too often, they have resorted to dangerous, sometimes deadly methods, such as inserting knitting needles or coat hangers into the vagina and uterus, douching with dangerous solutions like lye, or swallowing strong drugs or chemicals. The coat hanger has become a symbol of the desperation of millions of women who have risked death to end a pregnancy. When these attempts harmed them, it was hard for women to obtain medical treatment; when these methods failed, women still had to find an abortionist.

Illegal Abortion
Many of us do not know what it was like to need an abortion before legalization. Women who could afford to pay skilled doctors or go to another country had the safest and easiest abortions. Most women found it difficult if not impossible to arrange and pay for abortions in medical settings.

With one exception, the doctors whom I asked for an abortion treated me with contempt, their attitudes ranging from hostile to insulting. One said to me, ``You tramps like to break the rules, but when you get caught you all come crawling for help in the same way.''

The secret world of illegal abortion was mostly frightening and expensive. Although there were skilled and dedicated laywomen and doctors who performed safe, illegal abortions, most illegal abortionists, doctors, and those who claimed to be doctors cared only about being well rewarded for their trouble. In the 1960s, abortionists often turned women away if they could not pay $1,000 or more in cash. Some male abortionists insisted on having sexual relations before the abortion.

Abortionists emphasized speed and their own protection. They often didn't use anesthesia because it took too long for women to recover, and they wanted women out of the office as quickly as possible. Some abortionists were rough and sadistic. Almost no one took adequate precautions against hemorrhage or infection.

Typically, the abortionist would forbid the woman to contact him or her again. Often she wouldn't know his or her real name. If a complication occurred, harassment by the law was a frightening possibility. The need for secrecy isolated women having abortions and those providing them.

In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time.

Poor women and women of color ran the greatest risks with illegal abortions. In 1969, 75% of the women who died from abortions (most of them illegal) were women of color. Of all legal abortions in that year, 90% were performed on white private patients.

http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

I didnt know Roberts was a Catholic. How sad for America. I was brought up a Catholic(Am not one anymore) so I know the strong convictions against abortion they have.
Yes, women have always had abortions and always will. If it is illegal a lot of girls and women will die while having an abortion. Incompetent Doctors and unsanitary conditions have killed many women in the past who were having or had just had abortions. How sad.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The National Archives on Tuesday released 15,000 pages of government documents pertaining to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. from his days as a young lawyer in the Reagan-era Justice Department.

The documents were written between September 1981 and November 1982, when Roberts was a special assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith.

CNN reviewed many of the key documents, and highlights are listed below.

Advising O'Connor
Roberts helped Sandra Day O'Connor prepare for her 1981 Supreme Court confirmation hearings.


In a September 9, 1981, memo to O'Connor, Roberts argued that Supreme Court nominees should not answer questions on specific cases, citing the "appearance of impropriety":

"The proposition that the only way senators can ascertain a nominee's views is through questions on specific cases should be rejected. If nominees will lie concerning their philosophy, they will lie in response to specific questions as well.

"The suggestion that a simple understanding that no promise is intended when a nominee answers a specific question will completely remove the disqualification problem is absurd. The appearance of impropriety remains."


In a September 17, 1981, memo to Kenneth Starr, then a counselor to the attorney general, Roberts described his role in preparing O'Connor:

"My involvement in the Judge O'Connor appointment process began my first day on the job, August 10. I started in on the process of preparing draft answers to questions that were likely to be asked during the confirmation hearings.

"The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the Court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments."


Roberts drafted possible questions and suggested responses for O'Connor on issues such as judicial activism and immigration policy.


Roberts indicated he briefed O'Connor on past confirmation hearing questions and testimony (including what he called "particularly good answers").


Roberts helped compile profiles of Senate Judiciary Committee members, including identifying their likely areas of questioning, "pet projects and concerns."


Roberts indicated he held mock confirmation hearings with O'Connor, posing questions to her from past confirmation hearings.

School prayer
Roberts drafted an argument at the request of the attorney general on limiting the power of federal courts to rule on school prayer cases, according to a April 13, 1982, memo:

"We have concluded that Congress has the Constitutional power to divest the lower federal courts of jurisdiction over school prayer cases."

Affirmative action
Roberts had harsh words for a positive report on affirmative action by Arthur Flemming, the outgoing chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, according to a December 22, 1981, memo to the attorney general:

"The logic of the report is perfectly circular: the evidence of structural discrimination consists of disparate results, so it is only cured when 'correct' results are achieved through affirmative action quotas. Perhaps the clearest example of the self-serving nature of the report is found in the dismissal of failures in affirmative action as caused not by inherent flaws but 'sabotage.'

"There is no recognition of the obvious reason for failure: the affirmative action program required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates.

"I have drafted an innocuous reply to Chairman Flemming. The report is attached, although I do not recommend reading it."

Habeas Corpus/due process
In a November 12, 1981, memo, Roberts argued for restrictions of habeas corpus protections, which allows prisoners to petition a court that their case be reviewed and provides for a federal check against possible abuses by state officials:

"The current availability of federal habeas corpus, particularly for state prisoners, goes far to making a mockery of the entire criminal justice system.

"It is almost inconceivable that a rational legal system, even one with full concern for the Constitutional rights of criminal defendants, would be designed to approximate the present system arrived at through time by an uncoordinated process of judicial and legislation accretions."

Judicial activism/sign-language case
In a July 7, 1982, memo to the attorney general, Roberts criticized a lower court ruling requiring that a school board provide a free sign-language interpreter for a hearing-impaired student who had already been provided with tutors and a hearing aid:

"The lower courts, in an exercise of judicial activism, used the vague statutory language to overrule the board and substitute their own judgment of appropriate educational policy, imposing a requirement of an interpreter."

Limiting Supreme Court's reach
Roberts argued that Congress had the power to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction on controversial issues, like abortion, busing and school prayer -- but advised that doing so would be "bad policy," according to recently released memos.

A document dated April 12, 1982 shows that Roberts disagreed with the view of then-Assistant Attorney General Ted Olson that Republican legislation in Congress to limit such jurisdiction faced constitutional problems.

The Justice Department later sent a letter to the Senate and House Judiciary committees, concluding that Congress not curtail the high court's jurisdiction, the documents show.

Three years later, in a memo to his boss in the White House counsel's office, Fred Fielding, Roberts would still argue that the Senate bill to stop the Supreme Court from hearing challenges to voluntary school prayer laws was constitutional.

But he also advised that the Justice Department not reverse course and to "let sleeping dogs (an apt reference, given my view of the opinion) lie," he wrote.

CNN obtained the Fielding memo from a source with access to Roberts' documents.

The debate over the Supreme Court's jurisdiction centers on Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

The language says that the Supreme Court "shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

In the 1982 memo, Roberts wrote "NO!" in the margin next to one of Olson's arguments. He also offered a handwritten retort to Olson's contention that the Reagan administration would be seen as "courageous" by opposing such limits.

"Real courage would be to read the Constitution as it should be read and not kowtow to the Tribes, Lewises and Brinks!" Roberts wrote.

("Tribes" likely refers to liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe. The Washington Post speculates that "Lewises" and "Brinks" refer to New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis and then-American Bar Association President David Brink, who opposed the legislation.)

Olson had argued that the legislation was unnecessary because the Supreme Court already had a majority of Republican-appointed justices.

In response to this argument, Roberts underlined the names of Justices Blackmun and Stevens, two Republican appointees known for their liberal votes.

He also drew an arrow connecting Blackmun's name to the word "abortion." Blackmun was the author of the Roe v. Wade decision, which said that women had a constitutional right to an abortion.

Sex discrimination (Title IX)
Roberts advocated a narrow reading of federal Title IX laws, which bar sex discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funding.

In an August 31, 1982, memo to the attorney general, he argued that a university's athletics program is not subject to Title IX anti-discrimination laws if that specific program does not receive federal funds, regardless of whether the university itself receives federal funds:

"Under Title IX, federal investigators cannot rummage willy-nilly through institutions, but can go only as far as the federal funds can go."

"The women's groups pressuring us to appeal would have regulatory agencies usurp power denied them by Congress to achieve an anti-discrimination goal. Under your leadership the Department is committed to opposing such legislation by the bureaucracy and that commitment should continue in this case."

Busing/school desegregation
Roberts drafted a letter on April 6, 1982, in the Attorney General's name on the constitutionality of anti-busing proposals. The letter supported proposed legislation that would limit the power of federal courts to use busing as a means of desegregating schools:

"We do not believe busing is necessary to provide the equal educational opportunity mandated by Brown" (Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision that overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine for public facilities).

"The bill would protect all students from transportation to schools distant from their homes, irrespective of their race."



http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/27/rob...ents/index.html

"I agree. I dont think I would ever get an abortion either howevThser I should have the right to legally and in a secure safe manner. What irks me is if an abortion was made illegal women would still get it done and our sisters daughters etc would perhaps have permanent damage or even die by these back street butchers."

The same arguement could be made for hte legalization of some drugs people won't die from tainted drugs or from sharing needles. But no one buys that arguement then. Why should something be made and kept legal based of the fact 'well then people would break the law and . . .'

Why is it so evil for concervatives to have some repersantation on the supreme court? Are our view points less vaid because you dont' agree with us? Don't concervitives have the right to be heard? Guess not since we should have a judge that represents us.

hmm I dont think the concern or worry is if they are conservative or liberal, I think the concern is that they would hand down judgements BASED on their views rather than the laws and the Constitution.

Exactly what Emaillionairesemail said. Its not a worry about liberal or conservative. Its a worry about someone not following the laws or the constitution.
Their own personal religious views seem to sway some of these judges and that is not their job. Their personal relgious views should have nothing to do with their decision.

I agree with you.

Liberals and conservatives either one will be influenced in their own mind by personal views. Some are just more extreme than others (i.e., less "unbiased"), and that goes for anyone, whether liberal or conservative.

Liberals tend to lean towards minority opinions, which can be good if you're talking rights for non-whites, women, or the disabled, but can be bad when you're talking religious rights.

Why is it fine for a child to take a copy of the Koran, or a wiccan book to school, but they can get expelled for taking a Christian Bible to school? Some schools also allow children to wear any non-Christian RELIGIOUS-themed jewelry but a Christian cross is taboo.

I'm not arguing whether or not religion should be in school. I'm just pointing out the unfairness, that all religions EXCEPT Christianity are welcomed.

(and I'm not off-topic. The controversy over Roberts stems from his religious convictions)

Since the Supreme Court decided it was their job to interprete the law, no SC judge does a ruling based on the consitution the base it on what they think the law should be not the intent of it.

Wow, you are the first person I've seen that has mentioned that in an 'non-chritain based group' usaly it is be bring it up.

I have to disagree with you there I dont see that at all. In fact I see Christianity getting the "better rap" so to speak in this country. Christianity is allowed everywhere including government so I dont really see what you are saying

Cathy and I would not want far left leberals voting from their beliefs either,
"politically correct" can be utterly rediculous, changing the "In god we trust" to In the personal diety of your choice if you happen to have one" we trust. To go so far as to not allow a crucifix is one of those instances. (It is when the school itself is bringing ANY religion into a school that i do not like, not personal expression of ones religion)

The problem with voting from your personal beliefs rather than the law is that it does not serve the majority, but only serves those who share that belief.

Religious conviction, many personal convictions say abortion is a sin and is taking human life.
Actually for myself i agree with this, however looking at it REALISTICALLY I cannot make that choice for everyone, I cannot say a woman should be forced to parent, or forced to find an illegal way to end the pregnancy, or forced to carry to term then place the baby for adoption, I cannot force a woman who has been raped to carry the baby of the rapist to term, nor tell a woman who has a severly deformed fetus what decision to make.

In a perfect world this question would not come up, but the world is far from that.

The laws allowing abortions are also NOT a great solution, I would far prefer there were NO unwanted pregnancies, no babies born crack addicted, FAS etc,
I PERSONALLY would love to see some people lose the right to have children at ALL. But what my beliefs are work for me, and not the majority.

Good points.

My goal isn't to be a troll but I don't get why this agruement is so widely used by pro-choicers but no one buys it when it comes to illegal drugs. Or when it comes to killing someone that has already been born. Why is killing a pregnate woman double murder but unborn life means nothing if the mother decides to kill it?

I just doesn't make sense.

Well I personally believe most drugs should be made legal and so should prostitution so I am not the right person to ask that question to I guess

Lots of things don't make sense.

I *personally* feel that abortion is very, very wrong. But I won't judge someone who has an abortion for some of the reasons Mary mentioned- because of a rape, medical situation, etc.

If I were in one of those situations, I'm certain I could never have an abortion, to me it's murder no matter how you look at it.

So yes, I'm very much pro-life and politically conservative. I just don't want to judge another for their own views even if I don't agree with them.

But I certainly get what you're saying, CocaColaGirl. It makes NO sense that an unwanted unborn baby is a "fetus" and can be legally killed, but if it's wanted, it's a "baby" and legally protected.

And to those of you who are pro-choice, are you aware of what happens during a partial birth abortion?

Sorry if anyone is annoyed by going off topic. But, well, this IS Chit Chat.

Actually that is the huge big fault of the current law, that in some instances harm to an unborn child is not criminal.

The alternative to that is worse however, so again, we have what should be conflicting with the reality.

Edited to add: I do not at all think you are a Troll, I enjoy discussions on solutions to very serious problems. My views were very similar to your at one time actually. My "personal" choices would be I think, identical to your own. Pro choice does not automatically mean choosing to have an abortion. Just as not approving of some decision made by the adminstration does not make me any less patriotic



Sue, I agree with you, and I don't think you will find anyone who hates the damage drugs do more than I. I have seen more families ruined, seen more children struggling because of pre natal exposure than I care to think about.
Again what should be and what IS conflict.

Think of the "roaring" 20's if you will and prohibition:

The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.[1]

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.[2]

sound familiar?


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

the crime statistics are particularly interesting.

freeandeasy I know about partial birth abortion. I dont agree with some forms of abortions or pratices if you will. There are instances when women use abortion for birth control and of course I believe thats wrong, having said that maybe stricter laws more defined laws I dont know the answer but I know in my heart (even though I most likely wouldnt have an abortion) I dont want to make that decision and dictate what another woman can or can not do. I especially dont want our government (who are a majority men) making that decisions for me.

mary yes interesting article. I believe 100% in prositution being legal. To be regulated as it is in Las Vegas. Certain rules etc and the women have to pay taxes. Its going to be there anyways so why not make it legal and safe. The same reason I believe in legalizing most drugs.

davidbugs, I see you have thousands of posts in this fourm. Do any of your posts NOT mutilate the proper conventions of English grammar and syntax?

I really have trouble understanding your posts.