# Judge John Roberts: Partisan Hack **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2005, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265 "2005-07-20T08:37:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/61 "2005-07-20T15:52:58Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > You sound like a bunch of three year old brats squalling and throwing a temper tantrum because you didn’t get your way about something. > > Stuff a sock in it. Whee! It’s working! Louder kids, LOUDER! ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/62 "2005-07-20T15:53:15Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > You know, Bush could have nominated either the Risen Christ or a one-legged leper for the SC position and you libs would bitch about his choice. It doesn’t matter one bit what the candidate’s judicial philosophy is, you’ll bitch simply because \*Bush \* made the nomination. > > Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick, get a grip, will you? All we’ve heard since 2000 is how fucking miserable your lives are since Bush took office. Pot meet kettle. And you supported Clinton’s stance on what exactly? My life is not miserable–is yours? This is the forum to share strong opinions and feelings. See? We both can use to our advantage. You are welcome to your opinion, but I will say here that I do not dislike this appointee _just_ because Bush made it. I am concerned about this man’s stance on the environment and choice. I am also concerned about his ties to lobbying. But, yeah, it’s because the Evil One did it that I bitch here. Get a grip, much? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/63 "2005-07-20T15:53:55Z")
Looks like **Clothachump** needs a hug. Anybody here had rabies shots? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/64 "2005-07-20T16:02:07Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > You know, Bush could have nominated either the Risen Christ or a one-legged leper for the SC position and you libs would bitch about his choice. If you’d bothered to read this thread, you’d have noticed that most liberals are cautiously optimistic. But let’s not let that stand in the way of your whining about how liberals whine. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/65 "2005-07-20T16:03:29Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Pot meet kettle. And you supported Clinton’s stance on what exactly? My life is not miserable–is yours? Heaven knows I’ve done my fair share of griping here, and know that those gripes cannot be used to fully evaluate someone’s personality. That said, though, your online persona is rather miserable at times - and accurately named, too, from the looks of things. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/66 "2005-07-20T16:04:11Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > So calling someone pro-pollution is just another way of saying pro-business with an added negative spin, similar to calling a pro-lifer anti-choice? Not at all. There are plenty of pro-business positions that are consistent with improving the environment, and many more that are neutral on the topic. Whereas the so-called “pro-lifers” are always opposed to freedom of choice for women. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/67 "2005-07-20T16:04:22Z")
So far the most concerned I am is that he favors the illegalization of [flag-burning](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=shapiro2). I want to read _why_ he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned before judging there (there are actually a couple of legitimate reasons that, like Roe v. Wade itself, have relatively little to do with the ethics of abortion. As for Ann Coulter, I think it’s a ruse: she’s for him, but knows if she openly supports him then liberals will have apoplexy. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/68 "2005-07-20T16:07:40Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > At this point in time, I think the only people we can call “partisan hacks” in this matter are **Blalron** , **eleanorigby** , and **elucidator**. Further information has added **clothahump** to this list. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/69 "2005-07-20T16:10:30Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > I want to read _why_ he thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned before judging there (there are actually a couple of legitimate reasons that, like Roe v. Wade itself, have relatively little to do with the ethics of abortion. But see, he’s already said that he will follow it since it is the law of the land. Why do you think he wants to overturn it? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/70 "2005-07-20T16:12:01Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Not at all. There are plenty of pro-business positions that are consistent with improving the environment, and many more that are neutral on the topic. Whereas the so-called “pro-lifers” are always opposed to freedom of choice for women. In that case, I’d be interested in knowing more about his “pro-business” practices, just to judge for myself whether or not he is “pro-pollution”. I’m not saying he’s not, I’m saying I need more info. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/71 "2005-07-20T16:13:16Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > So far the most concerned I am is that he favors the illegalization of [flag-burning](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=shapiro2). The “illegalization”? :dubious: Really now, people. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/72 "2005-07-20T16:14:59Z")
> [@Lord Ashtar](#): > > But see, he’s already said that he will follow it since it is the law of the land. Why do you think he wants to overturn it? I’ve got to admit - I can see the possibility of his voting to overturn it. There’s a difference between following precedent on a lower court, and setting or overturning it on the high court. That said, the chances of getting a judge nominated who is committed to not overturning it from out of the Bush administration are nil. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/73 "2005-07-20T16:15:28Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > As for Ann Coulter, I think it’s a ruse: she’s for him, but knows if she openly supports him then liberals will have apoplexy. That’s the lamest thing I’ve seen in this thread yet. Are you kidding? The incredible things she’s said about “liberals” could fill volumes, and only now she cares enough to tone it down about a candidate virtually guaranteed to be approved by the Congress? Tell me another one. If Ann Coulter doesn’t like this guy it’s because he’s capable of rational thought and and reasonable decision making, neither of which she has proven capable of at any time. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/74 "2005-07-20T16:15:30Z")
I’m someone else who’s looking at him with cautious optimism, in part because some conservatives consider him too liberal. I also gather that, while he may not agree with Roe v. Wade, he doesn’t favor overturning prior decisions, so he may not vote to overturn it. I’m admitting it in public: I think George W. Bush may have done the right thing. CJ ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/75 "2005-07-20T16:28:17Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > So far the most concerned I am is that he favors the illegalization of [flag-burning](http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=shapiro2). And again it must be noted that this was an argument advanced by an administration that he worked for at the time, which instructed him to argue such. I don’t know that Roberts is for or against making flag burning illegal. Implying such from arguments made in his official capacity is flawed reasoning, for reasons I noted above. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/76 "2005-07-20T16:29:32Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > And what the hell is an umb? You’re too “depressed” to get the word right on your second try, too? There is a word in common English: umbrage. Look it up. I was making a joke by using twisting the word’s syllables. Now my flabber is gasted, but I am also laughing my ass off. Thanks for making my morning! ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/77 "2005-07-20T16:31:34Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Heaven knows I’ve done my fair share of griping here, and know that those gripes cannot be used to fully evaluate someone’s personality. > > That said, though, your online persona is rather miserable at times - and accurately named, too, from the looks of things. How nice of you to share. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/78 "2005-07-20T16:39:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > From some sources, contempt is a badge of honor to wear proudly. We thank you. [Ann Coulter is also disappointed in this choice](http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66). Look, can we at least learn some more about the guy before he gets thrown under the bus? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/79 "2005-07-20T16:48:55Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > And again it must be noted that this was an argument advanced by an administration that he worked for at the time, which instructed him to argue such. > > I don’t know that Roberts is for or against making flag burning illegal. Implying such from arguments made in his official capacity is flawed reasoning, for reasons I noted above. Are you suggesting that he would argue a position that he didn’t personally hold just because he was instructed to do so by the Administration? Doesn’t it stretch credulity to think that a Solicitor General would ever be hired by an Administration that didn’t know that he was on the same page? The President: “Well, as you know, I believe that all black people should be rounded up and shot.” Solicitor General Candidate: “I’m afraid I disagree, but if that’s what you want me to argue, I’ll have a draft brief written up after lunch. Now, about my parking space…” ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265/80 "2005-07-20T16:57:36Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Are you suggesting that he would argue a position that he didn’t personally hold just because he was instructed to do so by the Administration? Don’t lawyers do this _all the time_? They’re payed to argue for you, not agree with you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-john-roberts-partisan-hack/313265.md?page=5)