KillZone
09-09-2005, 03:05 PM
Fennix, I veered so much from the topic of your thread that I thought I would start another one.
It seems that Republican-appointed Justices tend to not remain what some would term “conservative” in their rulings. Perhaps the most glaring example of this was the Court’s decision in Roper v. Wade, where our US Supreme Court actually referred to laws of other nations. (No. I was not in favor on one so young being executed. Yet this, to me, was not the answer.)
With this precedent, cannot the Supreme Court now refer to the laws of Zimbabwe in their rulings? If not, why not? Thus it appears that many of the Republican-appointed members of the Supreme Court change their views over time. Thus the hullabaloe about Roberts might be overplayed.
Groups Who Oppose Roberts’ appointment: From The Feminist Majority Foundation:
http://www.feminist.org/courts/
Feminist Majority
National Organization for Women
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Jesse Jackson/Rainbow PUSH Coalition
MoveOn
ADA Watch
American Association of People with Disabilities
National Association of Social Workers
People for the American Way
Alliance for Justice
Human Rights Campaign
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
League of United Latin American Citizens
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Council of Women's Organizations
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Women’s Law Center
The Shalom Center
Actually, I see no big surprises on the above list.
The below group who opposed Roberts seems to care much for a "rare toad." I simply cannot relate to this mentality.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/21/environmental_groups_study_robertss_rulings_with_c oncern/
Environmental groups yesterday expressed concern about Roberts's dissent in the 2003 case of a rare toad whose habitat in California was threatened by development. As a federal appeals court judge, Roberts contended that the toad was not protected by federal law because it lives only in California, and the federal government can only regulate matters involving more than one state.
A "rare toad"? Yes.
This group opposes Roberts because he made a ruling anti-"rare toad"? This is luncacy to me, but this is only my opinion.
:eek!: :eek!: :eek!:
It seems that Republican-appointed Justices tend to not remain what some would term “conservative” in their rulings. Perhaps the most glaring example of this was the Court’s decision in Roper v. Wade, where our US Supreme Court actually referred to laws of other nations. (No. I was not in favor on one so young being executed. Yet this, to me, was not the answer.)
With this precedent, cannot the Supreme Court now refer to the laws of Zimbabwe in their rulings? If not, why not? Thus it appears that many of the Republican-appointed members of the Supreme Court change their views over time. Thus the hullabaloe about Roberts might be overplayed.
Groups Who Oppose Roberts’ appointment: From The Feminist Majority Foundation:
http://www.feminist.org/courts/
Feminist Majority
National Organization for Women
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Abortion Federation
National Council of Jewish Women
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Jesse Jackson/Rainbow PUSH Coalition
MoveOn
ADA Watch
American Association of People with Disabilities
National Association of Social Workers
People for the American Way
Alliance for Justice
Human Rights Campaign
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
League of United Latin American Citizens
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Council of Women's Organizations
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Women’s Law Center
The Shalom Center
Actually, I see no big surprises on the above list.
The below group who opposed Roberts seems to care much for a "rare toad." I simply cannot relate to this mentality.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/21/environmental_groups_study_robertss_rulings_with_c oncern/
Environmental groups yesterday expressed concern about Roberts's dissent in the 2003 case of a rare toad whose habitat in California was threatened by development. As a federal appeals court judge, Roberts contended that the toad was not protected by federal law because it lives only in California, and the federal government can only regulate matters involving more than one state.
A "rare toad"? Yes.
This group opposes Roberts because he made a ruling anti-"rare toad"? This is luncacy to me, but this is only my opinion.
:eek!: :eek!: :eek!: