Skip to main content

View Diary: What Would Roberts Say about This? (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, it is distracting (none)
    But I'm more curious as to what you think about this from a legal standpoint. Put politics out of it for the moment.
    •  From a legal standpoint? (4.00)
      If the man can not put his personal beliefs aside as a judge, he should resign.

      To show how fair I can be, if the issue was the death penalty, which I strongly oppose, if a judge can't impost that sentence when called for, he shoulld resign as well.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 01:53:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My thoughts exactly (none)
        But putting politics back into it, I don't want his moral beliefs influencing this decision at all--there's too much at stake for these individual women (or children, as the case may be).
        •  BREAKING! Hearings postponed to Thursday (none)
          http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aKbqRK2UXP3w

          Roberts, 50, was in line to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Bush instead will pick a new nominee for that seat. The dual vacancies are the first since 1971, when President Richard Nixon selected Rehnquist and Lewis Powell as associate justices. Roberts's confirmation hearings, originally scheduled to begin tomorrow, are being postponed, Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist said.

          •  Been away for the weekend (none)
            So I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet.  But I find it funny that Pat Robertson, who is so close with his buddy God, had a Pray-A-Thon for court vacancies about 2 years ago. The two vacancies are Republican appointed conservative judges.  So whose side is God really on?

            only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation -Sherman

            by smtfsc on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 04:10:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  So Should Harry Blackmun Have Resigned (4.00)
        ...from the SCOTUS immediately upon declaring that he would no longer "tinker with the machinery of death"?

        Though Blackmun served only six months after this declaration, Brennan and Marshall had taken similar blanket stances against the death penaly.  So should they have also resigned? Or as SCOTUS justices, is that within their prerogative, in your view?

        It seems to me so long as there are actually impartial judges available to hear abortion cases in a timely fashion (and it's not at all clear that that's the case here), I'd much rather have these anti-choice state judges recusing themselves than more or less automatically ruling against those coming before them seeking a judicial bypass to parental consent.  

        "This war is an ex-parrot." - The Editors

        by GreenSooner on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:06:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Excuse me (4.00)
          You misunderstand.

          Blackmun did his duty. He believed the death penalty unconstitutional and voted so. As would I.

          If Blackmun was a trial court judge and disregarded the clear rule of law, then he should resign.

          You misapprehend the point.

          The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

          by Armando on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:09:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with the notion (none)
            that, even though it's a shitty thing to do, I'm glad those judges recusing themselves. Allow only those judges who believe in the right to choose to issue decisions on a minor's abortion. Those pious ones could merely hear the case and deny the minor's choice. Sounds like the best case to me....

            The purpose of education is create men and women capable of doing new things, not merely repeating what others have done~~Jean Piaget

            by BigAl on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:30:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And when the (none)
              Talibaptists get us to the point where all the judges recuse themselves?

              The proposal you make is absurd.  Judges exist to enforce the law.  Allowing them to recuse themselves from what are not CASES, but from giving legally mandated orders that permit citizens to implement their rights means that those rights are meaningless.

              If wives are to obey their husbands, and judges start recusing themselves from domestic violence cases because those women ought to just do what their husbands say, and all will be well..., that would be ok?

              "Too many policemen, no liberty; Too many soldiers, no peace; Too many lawyers, no justice." Lin Yutang (1895-1976)

              by ogre on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 06:04:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I Was Asking for Clarification, Actually (none)
            Thanks. I thought you were saying what you were in fact saying, but I was just checking. That's why I added "as SCOTUS justices, is that within their prerogative, in your view?"  I thought you'd say "yes"...and you did.

            Where we seem to disagree is on my last paragraph...but I think we'd both agree that the best case scenario is not to have anti-choice extremists on the bench in the first place.

            "This war is an ex-parrot." - The Editors

            by GreenSooner on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:43:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  GMTA.... (none)
        [snip] If the man can not put his personal beliefs aside as a judge, he should resign.
        To show how fair I can be, if the issue was the death penalty, which I strongly oppose, if a judge can't impost that sentence when called for, he shoulld resign as well. [snip]

        Wow, GMTA. Only thing I'd have changed is 'he' to 'she/he' when discussing judges (personal preference, not a criticism, honest).

        Another example, but from the juror's side...

        Here in Texas, if you are anti-death penalty, you aren't even allowed to be a juror in a capital case. I was called for jury duty, filled out the form (which asks for religion), and waited all day to be called. When the Matron was allowing us to leave, I asked why I hadn't been sent to answer questions (there were 5 voir dire's going on, 2 for capital cases, rest for regular felonies). She said that, since I put down Buddhist, I wasn't eligible for capital cases. I asked why. She said it was because they know that Buddhists do not support the DP, so they were never allowed to serve as jurors in capital cases. I'm not sure if they exclude any other religions, since she only answered based on my form. But I do wonder...

        I also wondered why religion was even on the form in the first place (but didn't ask). Because I do know that, in capital cases (at least here), attorneys can ask about DP during voir dire, and can use that answer as a basis for accepting or passing on a potential juror. But isn't having that question on the form circumventing voir dire? I mean, isn't a person supposed to be tried by a jury of his/her peers? And wouldn't that include both anti's and pro's? Or is that just for non-capital cases?

        Armando, isn't separation of church and state supposed to prevent questions such as 'what is your religion' from being on documents such as juror information forms in the first place? Or am I misreading it? Not the first time that has happened, but I'd like to know, from an expert, if possible...

        Thanks....

        I Support the Separation of Church and Hate...
        Rev Denise Michel
        revdenisemichel@yahoo.com

        by rev denise michel on Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 02:10:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Death Penalty (none)
          Roberts will be interesting if (I suspect actally when) he is approved.
          The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is immoral.
          •  DP & Roberts... (none)
            [snip] Roberts will be interesting if (I suspect actally when) he is approved.
            The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty is immoral. [snip]

            Then they are flip-floppers. They are the ones who brougth us that delightful little interlude in history, known as the Inquisition. {END snark, for now}...

            BTW, they are also against birth control, but most AMerican Catholics still use it (I know I did when I was still an RC). Wonder how he will rule on, say, a Griswold-style case, or if he will recuse himself.

            I Support the Separation of Church and Hate...
            Rev Denise Michel
            revdenisemichel@yahoo.com

            by rev denise michel on Tue Sep 06, 2005 at 05:54:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site