Previous Next
Are you concerned about the president’s Supreme Court appointments?
Asked at Massachusetts Street on September 12, 2005
“I’m very concerned. There will be a serious change in the court, and I don’t think I will agree with the type of people Bush is going to appoint.”
“Yes I am concerned, because I think they will lean to the radical conservative side. The abortion issue is my main concern.”
“No. I don’t see any reason to be concerned about it. They have appointed other justices that didn’t have the background or experience that people are pushing for today.”
“Yes. I think they will be too conservative.”
Related story
- 100 years ago: Automobile owners asked to help area veterans May 29, 2012 · 2 comments
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 146 comments
- Sound Off: How can I check someone’s criminal record? May 28, 2012 · 7 comments
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 26 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 26 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 252 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 129 comments
- Poll: Do you support Gov. Sam Brownback's income tax cuts? May 23, 2012 · 84 comments
- Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line May 27, 2012 · 37 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 81 comments
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Kansas football scouring country May 29, 2012
- KU’s Elijah Johnson cautious at camp May 29, 2012
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Book helps family heal after tragedy May 28, 2012
- Famed author takes on Kansas October 7, 2005
- Retreat offered for writers May 28, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
As if the Republic weren't in enough trouble....
enochville (anonymous) says…
I like John Roberts. I want Roe v. Wade overturned. In the last presidential election, I wanted Kerry to win for a whole lot of reasons, but if Bush happened to win I would be happy for one reason-I knew he would appoint justices that might overturn Roe v. Wade.
I feel that the reason why we have a segment of the population that has lost the natural revulsion to abortion is due to repeated exposure to the philosophy that there is no harm in abortion and the convienient reframing of the taking of life into a woman's rights issue. It is classic systematic desensitization, where repeated exposure in stepwise progression extinguishes psychological aversion. Perhaps Alexander Pope states it best when he wrote in his "Essay on Man":
" Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."
Just to clarify, in my general stance against abortion, I do make exception for circumstances where the mother's life is in danger. It is a very difficult choice when self-preservation is in the balance. But, I do not like the current stance of the Supreme Court. I know that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, we'd still have a state by state battle ahead of us.
KsjKC (anonymous) says…
While I don't see Roe vs. Wade being overturned, I do see this point in history as an ideological shift on the court the likes of which we've not seen since Nixon had the chance to appoint three justices. Of course one of those appointee was William Rehnquist.
I'm not a big fan of extremism on either side of the scale, and my fear is that this President wouldn't know a moderate if one came up to him and said, "Hi, Sparky -- I'm a moderate..."
And then reached for the chalkboard to explain what a moderate was...(Sorry--if I can't start the day with a presidential dig, I get heartburn..)
neopolss (anonymous) says…
I couldn't care less. Considering that most appointments made to the bench usually don't follow what the current president wants out of them, I wouldn't give it too long before the new judges are being labeled "activist."
We shun the young ones for getting pregnant and being seen, and we hate them for wanting to get rid of it. In essence, we have created the very problem by social opinion. I'll worry more about the already born.
Flame on.
crohan1978 (anonymous) says…
Why is it these are never questions asked when a liberal president is selecting extremely liberal judges? Do conservatives not have the right to be concerned? This paper has got to be one the most liberal papers in the country, extremely biased goes along w/ that last statement too.
KsjKC (anonymous) says…
I've heard conservatives are paranoid...How about you?
The reason this is news is that we have not had a new Chief Justice since 1986, when Burger defected for the Statue of Liberty committee and Reagan appointed Rehnquist...
If you don't recall the firestorm when Clinton named peolple to the court then you are a victim of paranoia AND selective memory....
davidryan (David Ryan) says…
crohan1978 (and anyone else interested): LJWorld.com has a great search engine, in case you aren't familiar with it. Here are some search results from the Journal-World on the phrase "Clinton Supreme Court Nominees":
From June 12, 1993:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1993/jun...
From March 22, 1997:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1997/mar...
From December 12, 1999:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/1999/dec...
Here's a link to the full search results, in case you want to peruse past Journal-World stories on Supreme Court Nominees:
http://www2.ljworld.com/search/?q=Cli...
KsjKC (anonymous) says…
Crohan1978, you wrote:
"Why is it these are never questions asked when a liberal president is selecting extremely liberal judges?"
The inferrence is that by extrapolation, this conservative president is selecting an extremely conservative judge?
Well, you nailed that one...as far as we can tell in this hotbed of rabid liberalism...
PS--Have you no idea how conservative the editorial board of this newspaper is and has been for practically forever?
mr_daniels (anonymous) says…
Nope. Not concerned at all. Roberts will interpret the Constitution. He will not *legislate from the bench*.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
yes, i am concerned. i think john roberts will bring some normalcy back to the court. with sandra day o'conner leaving and rehnquist's death, this is a perfect situation to put even another normal person on the court. two normal judges.
judicial activists have led our country down a slippery slope of debauchery like the freedom of a mother to kill her own child. pitiful. more killed in the united states than what all the tyrants and dictators killed in history. over 44,000,000+ dead and still counting.
it amazes me that the proponents of abortion are killing their own democratic party just by attrition. why did gore lose? why did kerry lose? it's simple, the democrats killed off their voters before they were even born. these voters would've been 18 years old, old enough to vote had they been given the "choice" to live.
if roe v. wade is over turned, it will be good for the democratic party. something i can easily overlook in order for someone to live.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Not worried about one appointment, but I guess I'll say I'm concerned that Bush will have 2 and probably 3 before he's out. And it's not that it's Bush, but I'd feel the same if it happened to be Kerry.
And Roe v Wade isn't getting overturned. What's the latin term that says the "law is settled?" I understand the paranoia though.
Continue the gnashing of teeth.
Liberty (anonymous) says…
What allows the supreme court to 'legislate from the bench' is when misinformed lower courts and police enforce decisions made by a court instead of only the law that was created by Congress.
Concerning the question the answer is no, as long as those appointed to the court are just in their decisions by honoring God and the Constitution. Too much weight is placed on prior decisions to slowly twist justice and pervert it.
captain_poindexter (anonymous) says…
not concerned.
and roberts shouldn't answer any questions he doesn't want to.
just like ginsburg didn't.
I didn't mind when she didn't answer questions, so I don't mind now.
captain_poindexter (anonymous) says…
just a test.
am I anonymous?
craigers (anonymous) says…
Even Money if you were poking fun at Slim Shady then I got what you were saying and it made me laugh. I guess nobody else saw that movie.
I'm not concerned since I know that Bush will appoint judges that are concerned with interpreting the Constitution correctly and conservatively. Even if certain decisions don't get overturned I would be thankful that we won't be heading down the same liberal path that we have been on in the recent past.
neopolss (anonymous) says…
I love how many of the "activist" judges were appointed to the bench by conservatives. The public's memory is indeed short term.
hottruckinmama (anonymous) says…
lol. everything this president does concerns me.
BunE (anonymous) says…
I am concerned but I am not losing much sleep over it. The Senate will do its job and we will see if the dems have any backbone. He will get through the process, and will be a Rehnquist clone.
In a fun twist on "Judicial Activism", the republicans in California are certainly excited by the prospect of "activist judges" getting involved in the gay marriage debate.
craigers (anonymous) says…
They might be 'Slim' but he will be confirmed. Maybe 'Rabbit' will be nominated next?
wichita_reader (anonymous) says…
I know I'm going to get grilled for this, but I'm definitely concerned about Robert's appointment. Consider the following.
In July of this year, Roberts sat on a three-judge D.C. Court of Appeals panel hearing the "Hamdan" case, and voted to uphold the Bush Administration's use of military tribunals to try prisoners held on terrorism accusations at Guantanamo Bay. Yet at the same time, he was interviewing for the Supreme Court position with some of the very same Administration officals named in that lawsuit. On July 15th, Roberts met with President Bush (also a named defendant in the suit) for his final Supreme Court interview -- and ruled in favor of the Administration in the Hamdan case.
Basically, we have a judge deciding a case in which one of the parties is an administration from which he is seeking a promotion. Unethical? No doubt. Should Roberts have recused himself? You bet. Any judge or attorney, and anyone with a bit of common sense can answer that question. Did Roberts recuse himself? No.
Do we really want this man to be the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court?
Like C+C Music Factory once sang, "[t]hings that make you go, hmm . . .."
captain_poindexter (anonymous) says…
confirmation is guaranteed.
the real battle will be for the O'Connor replacement.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
TOB:
The Latin term is "stare decisis." The idea is to allow settled law to stand (unless it's just absolutely wrong) so that the law as it is understood is not changing all the time. The concept of stare decisis does not preven the court from differentiating a case at hand from an already settled case if there is a clear factual or theoretical difference between the two.
Ahh, law school...I guess I did learn something there.
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
E_M and E_M - very very very clever. You do-ma(i)n (assuming you are of the male persuasion).
Great movie. One of my favorites ever, after Blazing Saddles and Airplane.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
Whoops...prevent, not "preven." My bad.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
avhmjkdrlkjeoi - Thanks. Latin class apparently did not stick with me. I understand it's does not prevent the court from changing... I thought that most of the justices and Roberts have said that they respect stare decisis.
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
Roe v. Wade allows American women to make their OWN decisions. Roberts' view on abortions is unclear to me. I know that the next justice Bush nominates is extremist & will work towards getting rid of Roe v. Wade. That is as un-American as it gets. America is about people making their OWN choices without government intrusion.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
TOB:
Yeah, most say they do, and most probably do. It takes 4 justices agreeing to even decide to hear a case, and stare decisis issues usually don't make that first cut because nobody wants to open the issue back up. Often, if settled law is brought back to the court, they take the opportunity to reaffirm it.
I had to chuckle when I saw your "translation" of my screenname. Someday, if you're lucky, I'll explain it.
GreenEyedBlues (anonymous) says…
Gootsie said male "persuasion".
E_M's Friend: Hey, be a man!
E_M: OK!
I don't have a problem with whomever will be placed in the Supreme Court, so long as they make decisions using constitutional values and not what they learned in bible school. Making any political decision in the name of a higher power only serves those who happen to believe in that said higher power.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
I, personally, don't know what Roberts will be like. He's got that "thing" that most jurists have, that mystery/mystique making him hard to read and hard to pin down. They always say that, even if people know a lot about the Justices, they can still remain anonymous because the Court isn't filmed, and people just don't recognize Justices' faces.
One Justice, and I can't remember who it is, said that he doesn't feel the need for a security detail in his daily life because no one knows him from Adam.
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
GEB, thank you for noticing my three-syllable word this morning. It was tough on me.
e_m, you don't have to reveal your persuasion. We are anonymous right? Hiding behind our screen names. Or, as a very wise Bob said,
"The anonymity setting differentiates between people who stand by their comments and people who might be hiding behind their online anonymity for whatever reason."
"...you'll still be able to post to our site even if you want to hide behind an anonymous screenname."
Signed,
G
GreenEyedBlues (anonymous) says…
Gootsie I was just bein' silly.
I didn't mean to offend you!
Let's never fight again.
Love, G
enochville (anonymous) says…
rhd99: I agree that America is about Liberty, but I also thought America was about Life and the Pursuit of Happiness as well. Pure, unrestrained liberty, not tempered with other virtues results in murder, robbery, rape, and plunder. I only ask that you remember life while you promote liberty.
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
GEB - Aw I knew you were just funnin'. No offense taken - really! I was feeling pretty genius-like with my big word!
Typical Monday for me - I typed in Google instead of Gootsie. You did that subliminal thing on me, omb!!
giggles
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
Is it Bob Avhmjkdrlkjeoi?
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Thanks again avljslkrimalkwfiwe for clearing that up. I have a couple lawyer type friends but oddly enough they seem to know nothing about the law in general. Just how to read contracts.
And I'm interested to here your story behind your name. Otherwise I will just refer to you as an 'a' with numerous and random letters behind it.
Larry (anonymous) says…
Absolutely not. Why do you ask?
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
Enoch, thanks for reminding me. I did mean that I respect the values of our country, Life, Liberty, & the Pursuit of Happiness. Part of what this nomination of Roberts unlike Rhenquist entails is VERY questionable at best. I mean, the hot button issue of Roe v. Wade opens a pandora's box for everybody in this country. Abortion NEEDS to be left up to the MOTHER & a family, NOT the government. That is why I am pro-choice. I suscribe to the values you mentioned, but I also believe in free choice as long as our choices are within the laws of this country.
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
I always hope (usually in vain) that SCOTUS appointees will have some respect for what the Constitution actually says, not what their personal policy preferences imagine it to say. I hope Bush has the sense to appoint a strict constructionist, but Bush I gave us Souter who was decried as a right-wing extremist when he was nominated but turned out to be just another left-leaning big government type. No one cried about "balance" on the court or the leftward lurch it was taking when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was nominated 11 years ago. Clinton got to make his choices, Bush should get his.
rhd99: I have a serious question regarding the last sentence in your 1:09 post. If R v. W is overturned and the right to restrict abortion is returned to the states and then Kansas prohibits or severely restricts abortion, would you be willing to accept that since it would be "within the laws of this country"? I guess the reason for my question is to ask if something being merely legal makes it OK (moral, just, acceptable, whatever). Or are there values that transcend laws that might cause you (or me) to say "This law is wrong"?
Fangorn (anonymous) says…
A follow-up question for everyone, based on an earlier post: How does one define an "activist" judge?
heretoday (anonymous) says…
good job guys! No one today has gone to the jugular on either side today! I am proud we are all grappling with this question in a socratic way and not throwing the fbomb to one another.
enochville (anonymous) says…
People who use the term "activist judge" mean someone who interprets the law differently from them and codify their interpretation into the way the law can be applied. I stress the phrase "differently from them" because contrary to the belief of some, all readings of the law are subjective to some extant. In other words, there is no objective meaning of the law.
As no one can speak without an accent, likewise, no one can read law without inserting their own interpretation or slant on its meaning.
There is a saying I like which says, "I speak out of the context of your experience, and you hear out of the context of yours". For example rhd99 feels that Liberty includes the meaning of the right to end the life of one's child and Life only applies to human beings who have been born. I feel the opposite. Both interpretations are subjective. There is no objective source that we can turn to to say definitively what is meant by Liberty and Life.
If there are activist judges, I think they are those who apply the law in a way vastly different from the general consensus of the population or overthrow judicial precedent.
enochville (anonymous) says…
That quote was supposed to read, "I speak out of the context of my experience, you hear out of the context of yours"
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
activist judge - Enoch's first sentence nails it.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
Sorry guys--lunch and then a meeting. You may refer to me as "a" followed by whatever sneeze of letters comes out of your keyboards. Sometimes my husband even gets the letters wrong!
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
avhjbobrulesmlk- you promised a story. come on.
rhd99 (anonymous) says…
Fang, I am merely saying that it needs to be left up to a woman, her family & the doctors to decide if these abortions are right for women. I am pro-choice because of this: what happens if there was incest or rape prior to the pregnancy? The health of a woman giving birth after rape & incest could be in danger. The danger could also arise if an abortion is conducted. That is at the heart of why this issue bothers America so much with Roberts' nomination to succeed Rhenquist. I too am confused as to where Roberts resides on this issue. Another thing, our Kansas politicians will do anything to try to stop abortions altogether. Phil Kline is leading that effort & quite frankly, given his questionable past, he is an abysmal failure as Attorney General of Kanas. That does not say nice things for a government official like Kline where this abortion issue is concerned.
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
Must go. Can't wait to see what other smatterings of letters people come up with for my screen name...
Come on, guys...Be creative!
avhjmlk (anonymous) says…
TOB--truly lovely, that last one. Didn't even notice it until just now. You are my new favorite person.
heretoday (anonymous) says…
I am confident that Bush will try to find a benelovant and worthy replacement for the justice of the law. I do not know if Roberts will push overturning Roe v Wade but I hope that he trys. The court will decide if there's a constitutional right to partially deliver a late-term child and then destroy it. Partial-birth abortion is making its way to the Supreme Court and I am hoping that it and all abortion is ruled as being unconstitutional...... smear me if you like. Bear in mind the child's rights to bless our existence. THe abortion issue is divided amongst party lines in the Senate and unfortuantely most people want it to stand.
heretoday (anonymous) says…
Roberts confirmation hearings are on Foxnews if you would like to tune into the commentary....
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"Roberts confirmation hearings are on Foxnews if you would like to tune into the commentary...."
There is a whole lot of funny in that statement.
heretoday (anonymous) says…
Explain TOB.
heretoday (anonymous) says…
Since CNN and MSNBC are switching back and forth from FEMA and Tropical ophelia I just thought I would let yall know that Fox is having commentary from both the left and the right. Sorry you think its funny.
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
avhjbobrulesmlk (partial listing)
blab jerk mush vol
blab jerk hums vol
blab jerks hum vol
blab lev josh murk
blabs jerk hum vol
bah blum jerks vol
bah lbs jerk vol mu
blahs job lev murk
blahs bum jerk vol
bash blum jerk vol
heretoday (anonymous) says…
As Dean would say. aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggh. http://www.marriedadults.com/howardde...
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
heretoday - oh, no offense. just my personal distaste for manufactured opinions from cable tv news outlets. left/right, fox/cnn/msnbc. don't matter. It's definately just me. Not you.
I did read that Jerry Rivers is thinking about suing some chick from the NYT for describing his news reports on Foxnews from New Orleans as "showboating." This easily is one of the most entertaining subplots of the hurricane. Always needs some comedy to help with trajedy.
heretoday (anonymous) says…
TOB. None taken..... I do understand how all the muckity muck can get mucky when everyone is trying to pull their own opinion via the media. I did hear something of the sort. The Geraldo deal...its hard to get what one does or says legitimately. Don't mess with Geraldo when he's helping old ladies! Its good that he is trying to set the record straight. But I can see the humor in this!
Wallythewalrus (anonymous) says…
I just want to know their views on medical herbs. Pro or con. As if I had a vote in this matter.
Horace (anonymous) says…
To the people who are concerned about judges who "make law", you might want to inform yourself about the common law system we use in the US. Most "law" comes from judges.
If you want a civil law system where judges don't make law...
then move to France!
Azure_Attitude (anonymous) says…
I'm about to have a freakin' heart attack about it!! i sometimes catch myself hyperventilating when I think about this. I need a paper bag . . . Brown's ignore fest with Miss Kitty and the lies in his published biographical data might be big enough screw ups to see him rewarded with one of supreme court nominatons! Guess I picked the wrong time to quit smokin'. . .
Azure_Attitude (anonymous) says…
Wow! I just read that Brown resigned - this he got right.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Haha, couple posts down and lunacydetectors "democrat party dying by attrition" argument spouts back up! Because we know that ONLY democrats have abortions, and NO republican would ever kill any baby, or be guilty in the slightest way of hypocracy.
jonas (anonymous) says…
Fangorn: "Activist judge"= modified noun phrase. def. Judge that I disagree with.
I would think that obvious.
tuschkahouma (anonymous) says…
I'm going to call out the "Know-nothings" for what they are.
Activist judges like Earl Warren, pushed Civil Rights in spite of bigotry and denial of the 14th Amendment
by Dixiecrat/Republicans of now in the South, ( I know,
i lived there 20 years ago). i hope all of these anti-
intellectual Republicans realize their attitudes spell them
out for the racists they are. Forty years ago, they would
be out and out racists. When they were made to see
the homicidal racist stupidity they espoused, they spent
the next thirty years coining words like "Political Correctness" and "Activist Judges" to take themselves
off the hook for their racist tendencies by attacking the
messenger and avoiding responsibility for their racist
comments and acting like victims? please!
i'm bringing the conversation back up to an intellectual
level because I'm tired of fox news 101 and Neo-cons
who couldn't think themselves out of wet paper bag.
I've engaged quite a few of them and they're clueless.
They emulate the "Dumbing down" of diologue. They can't carry on an intelligent conversion. When you
get into a discussion with them, they freak out
and start yelling like Bill O'Reilly.
If this Roberts guy can follow the rule of law regardless
of his politics, he's proved to me he can think and cite
legal precedents. However, if he pulls a Rehnquist or
Scalia and rules from a partisan nature, He's just a new
version of the old horse, and a scary one at that. I do
give him props for scaring Sam Brownback, though.
GreenEyedBlues (anonymous) says…
Tuschkahuoma is my new favorite.
GreenEyedBlues (anonymous) says…
Who am I kiddin?
I can't betray E_M, he's my real favorite.
heretoday (anonymous) says…
tuschkahouma you seem bitter..
heretoday (anonymous) says…
such anger shows insecurity :-)