[quote name='elprincipe']I suggest you actually do a little research on Roberts' experience before making such comments. He's argued a ton of cases before the Supreme Court.
Additionally, justices are often nominated who have ZERO judging experience just on the basis of them being excellent lawyers, yes, even chief justices. I suggest you also review the history of the Supreme Court in regards to this matter.
Although off-topic, I do agree with you on the FEMA thing, though. I think every sane person pretty much does.[/QUOTE]
That's the primary problem. Bush appointees have been partisan (well, no shit they have been; them's the breaks in a democracy). However, so many of them have been astonishingly extreme in their views that it was clear that they would greatly alter the very nature of what people in that particular role traditionally do. Bernard Kerik, John Bolton, Janice Rogers Brown, "those other unapproved judicial nominees whose names I can't recall" (
), Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, et al. In short, being sickened and frightened by a Bush nominee had, for most of us, become a Pavlovian response.
That, admittedly, got in the way of seriously considering Roberts. He is qualified intellectually, that much is certain. His avoidance of questions is peculiar, but I can't say for certain if he answered a certain number of questions more or less than Ginsburg with a avoidant sleight-of-hand answer. Frankly, I don't care, because it seems evident that it's pretty standard for judicial nominees to shrug their shoulders at certain questions.
As I mentioned in the other thread (it's the one sgs89 linked to above, while seeming to applaud his own intellect just one more time), congress is acting like congress, and Roberts is acting like a judicial nominee being questioned. There's nothing out of the ordinary here. However, one major problem, one that seems to be implied under every argument against his nomination made by Democrats and left-wingers, is that we seem to fully expect him to show his true colors after being confirmed.
I don't think many of us expect it to be subtle, either. We seem to want it to be grandiose, where Roberts will peel back his "handsome man" mask like the lizard people from the fantastic sci-fi show "V," and reveal a disgusting creature lying beneath his good-looking-smooth-talking alter ego. Roberts will then consume and digest the remaining 7 justices (though I imagine he'd have a hard time passing Scalia), and will reign the Supreme Court on his own, ruling with an iron fist and substituting the consitution with a Christian Bible written in the language of his alien race.
Ok, so it won't be *that* dramatic. However, the running implied conspiracy theory is that Roberts will turn out to be a staunch constitutional literalist (even if his record seems to imply he's a "tweener"), overturning abortion (most crucially), increase racial inequality through his opposition to affirmative action laws (well, we're pretty much guaranteed of that if it comes up - which it almost certainly will - during his tenure), and doing other things to reinforce the hegemony of the capitalist class (sorry, I've been studying marxists recently).
In short (too late for *that*), in the 80's Reagan nominated O'Connor, he didn't get what he bargained for (he got a moderate when he wanted a conservative). I think that democrats are afraid that the exact opposite will apply here. It is not unsurprising to think that a judge will act differently than we speculate after being confirmed, and Roberts is no different.
The most bothersome thing for me, however, is Robert's insistence upon the salience of precedent cases (stare decisus, or some legal shit like that - I'm not a legal scholar), as well as peoples' rights of privacy. That, in all reality, should have spurned OUTRAGE on the anti-abortion right; such statements basically implied that, while it may be no surprise that Roberts is pro-life, he won't overturn Roe v Wade. This nominee, and the next, are the best (possibly only?) chance to outlaw abortion rights in the United States. How can the anti-abortion right (and, whether a minority of the party or not, unarguably they are VERY vocal) take a chance remaining quiet while their leader, Bush, nominates a man who won't do what they voted Bush in to do? Their silence is, to me, deafening, and more frightening than anything related to Roberts.
It is, (and I'll wrap it up here) all speculation on my part. I have no reason to believe that Roberts will turn into a monster (though I'm preparing myself to not be surprised). I have no concrete evidence of anything except for Roberts' qualifications; he deserves to be (and will be) confirmed. If he proves himself to be a radical, however, then we should all recognize that as a crystal clear indication that our federal government needs to revise their methods of judicial questioning (that is, we should not approach questioning with the false assumption that people can rule unbiased, and that answers should be honestly given, rather than avoided).
Now, to work.
up.. you lost. D. M bitch slapped you around this thread and like always you provided the ammo. 
