Supreme Court Nominee

[hdkbill]

President Bush today announced he is norminating John G. Roberts, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not much is known about him but according to Mark Kernes in an article published today by AVN:
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=233874

"But there is little doubt that Roberts has been thoroughly vetted as to his positions on the issues most important to the administration and its supporters: Opposition to abortion availability; favoritism to businesses and corporations over individuals; support of government power to diminish (if not erase) civil liberties; support for the administration's policies in the prosecution of the war in Iraq and its treatment of the prisoners of war which it terms "enemy combatants"; opposition to equality for gays; and, of course, support for the war on free speech and free press."

I guess Bush could have nominated someone worse....but sure doesn't seem like this bodes well for the gay community of our 1st Amendment rights.

Bill

[Fetishlady]

i saw it on the news a while ago.

is John Roberts more on the right wing or left wing??

[basschick]

he's WAY right wing.

[hdkbill]

The problem with John Roberts is that he hasn't been around long enough to have been involved in any real controversial issues but he is in fact a conservative republican. He does appear to be against a woman's right to choose and opposed to "special" rights for the gay community....whatever they hell "special" rights are.

You can assume that if he was nominated by Dubya.....he's a right wing conservative. He may not be as far to the right as others who had mentioned....but he isn't going to be a good thing for the gay community, for abortion rights or for 1st Amendment freedom.

Bill

[desslock]

Look guys - last year's Ashcroft v. ACLU 5-4 ruling which bars enforcement of
Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
( http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.web.indecency/ )
was written by a Reagan appointee. Furthermore, the dissent which argued the COPA law was cool was written by Clinton appointee Justice Stephen Breyer (who worked on Sen. Ted Kennedy's staff btw)

Clinton appointee Breyer was joined by O'Connor. So even if this new individual has an identical view to O'Connor's then it wouldn't alter a future Internet free speech ruling. The dissent was also joined by Rehnquist, so if he retires and his replacement is identical, then that wouldn't change the balance.

Beyond that, this extremely relevent case to our industry illustrates how the party affiliation of a US President is a highly unlikely method to predict their appointees' future rulings. You probably have better statistical chance of winning Keno in Vegas. But it is a fine opportunity for interest groups to scare people enough to shake them down for money.

Furthermore, all justices statistically have a track record of moving to the center the longer they stay on the court. It would probably be best for 2257 litigation to bounce around in the lower courts for several years.

Steve