Julia Roberts nominated as new Supreme Court Justice...!
OK, whatever. So it's John Roberts. Gawd I wish it were Julia, she could really mix it up up there. Since I have given up on the office of the president with the current adminiscraption, I was not surprised to see the headline on an online news source read "Bush nominates Roberts for Supreme Court", thinking, ok, so he's taken a step to reach out to the people by nominating an Academy Award winner.
But again, duped. Not only did I have to type extra loud and squint so as to avoid hearing and/or seeing That Fake Smirk Face and That Scripted Sound Bite Idiot Voice attached to You Know Who when I saw him make the announcement on tee-vee, but I also learned that federal appeals court judge JOHN Roberts was the actual nominee.
I'll endeavor to find something good in Yet Another Middle Class White Male on the court. I may be a while. And he's inexperienced. And one of 'them' (what I'm calling neo-cons, in response to 'them' using the word 'liberal' like it gives you hives or something). Ah, a new Justice prime for further partisan molding. What Most Interesting times we live in.
Just like right after Sept. 11th when Bush failed in every way to put into action his proported wish for freedom and resolve through tapping in to massive global support and rallying all Americans to join together to remain steadfast, instead pissing off many in the world including half of us his 'my way or the high way' nonsense, he again neglects another chance to do something for the greater good, namely foster his claims of bi-partisanship by chosing a moderate or say, someone with experience. But no, we get Roberts. Neat!
It's cause 'greater good' is not on his agenda. I think we all know that. But at least he should be a man and acknowledge that we've been on to his posse for quite some time. But then, even if we're on to him, the Supreme Court can override that and...oh it's all quite depressing. Thank god Jude Law recently publicly apologized for sleeping with his kid's nanny, thereby violating fidelity to his fiancee. See, that's shiny happy news and the only types of headlnes I can take seriously these days.
I know we're going to hell in a handbasket soon too because the voice-over of the reporter at Bush's announcement shared with us that Roberts is "Well liked in Washington...a great sports fan...and a funny guy".
Now that's what I'm lookning for in a Supreme Court Justice.
This is laughable.
What do you think Sandra Day O'Connor is thinking right now? Will the Senate confirm? Bring on the media frenzy! At this point we can still appeal to our Senators to not approve this nomination.
And if you support Roberts, John, not Julia in this case, please share why. Don't let my raging language deter you from sharing your opinion, I do value them (unless you are my Troll Blogger).
But if you are content with Bush's decision and think "why is she getting all worked up, it won't hurt her life, it's not like there's this THING out there coming to get us", I will shoot back with the same response to why the US is in Iraq. What, are we under fire? Is the 'man' coming to get us? Please. The 'man' is right here at home, let's turn inward. The courts are always a nice place to start...
posted by Lisaopolis @ 20:03
4 Comments:
Completely agree on the whole, he's a Bills fan nonsense. While I was watching Shrub's speech, I kept thinking, "My God, man! Get to the point! I don't give a flying crap WHAT sports he likes or doesn't like. I don't even care if he's a 'real' person - whatever the hell that means. I want to know how the guy thinks and what his positions are and that's it."
I don't understand all of the bullshit about making people in politics excessively human. Save it for the biographers 50 years from now. For the moment, it's little tidbits of information like that that squeeze out the important facts about him, and it's all part of this larger idiotic concept of having 'character' (again, definition please) being more important than anything else, such as intelligence, wisdom, qualifications, etc. The assumption is that Joe Schmoe, who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, cannot talk about issues with any intelligence, but he can look into the eyes of any man, instantly assess their character/spirit, and know then and there that he/she is the right man for the job. Bullshit.
Actually, I'm going to do something surprising for a hard-core liberal and say that I am not wholly upset with W's choice for once. From what I hear about Roberts, although he is firmly considered a conservative, he also has a reputation, even among Democrats, for being very fair and impartial. While he's only been a federal judge for a short time, he's pleaded many, many cases in the Supreme Court. And while he has stated in the past that he has wished Roe vs. Wade were overturned, he has more recently commented that, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," and added, "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Let's just hope this is true. Finally, let's remember that O'Connor was a conservative member on the Court when she was first appointed and that she has continously shifted further and further to the left over her tenure. I am cautiously optimistic that Roberts could be the same way, especially if he's going to be there over the next 25 years or so. Okay, was that long-winded enough for you;)
Hi Lisa..I have been listening to NPR this afternon in order to get more input on this Roberts guy. I am reserving judgment (uncharacteristically)(sp?). Some respected folks are at least not totally HORRIFIED but the jury is definitely still out. We shall see. Love, Cindy
first, i just wanted to say that stumbling across your blog has been a nice refreshment. we need more open minded, free-speech-powered debate about the state of our country, and it's nice to see more of it in action.
while i can't say i know enough about mr. roberts to push my opinion to one side or another, i can say that the track record of the bush administration, i am prone to cautious decisions.
but, that said, i also feel that the supreme court _is_ in need of a change (after their recent rash of questionable decisions)--i just don't know if this guy is gonna be that change or not.
as to the part about being in iraq--we're over there, and our boys are being blown up daily. it's not about democracy in iraq. it's not about hunting down the people responsible for nine eleven.
if it was that simple we'd have gone over there in force and it would be over now. i think the american public underestimates the power of the american military.
instead, we're sinking in, preparing for a long, drawn-out stay. why?
money.
and distraction.
certain entities (and individuals) are in very lucrative positions because of our continued involvement over there.
and here on home soil, it's even worse. new laws strip privacy, freedom, and civil rights from us, precedent after precedent, and it's all in the name of the 'war on terror'.
as long as the american public is busy watching what's going on over there, and as long as it's for 'homeland security', we don't seem to mind (or notice, for that matter) as our rights are legislated right under the rug.
but i'm not gonna preach at you. just keep doing what you're doing. keep reading, learning, and getting your voice out there.
i will too.
--cid
cidViscous.blogspot.com
Kommentar veröffentlichen
<< Home