BushCo. really likes the role of villain don't they?
No one knows what it's like to be the Bad Man, the Sad Man,

Behind Blue Eyes.

No one knows what it's like to be Hated, to be Fated,

To telling only Lies.
But my dreams they aren't as empty as my Conscience seems to be.

I have Hours, Only Lonely, My Love is Vengence, that's Never Free.

-Eric Clapton

BushCo. really likes the role of villain don't they?
No one knows what it's like to be the Bad Man, the Sad Man,

Behind Blue Eyes.

No one knows what it's like to be Hated, to be Fated,

To telling only Lies.
But my dreams they aren't as empty as my Conscience seems to be.

I have Hours, Only Lonely, My Love is Vengence, that's Never Free.

-Eric Clapton

Actually, I think that song was by The Who. I used to have the album it was on, and I can clearly recall Roger Daltry's voice singing it. 

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/wh...t-violence.html

Why did Roberts single out the Violence Against Women Act?
by Joe in DC - 7/19/2005 09:00:00 PM

Weird -- and possibly disturbing -- coincidence.

Tonight, Bush nominates Roberts who apparently has a disdain for federal laws, prefering state laws instead. But in a radio interview, AP reports that he singled out the Violence Against Women Act as one example of a place where the federal government need not be involved:

    Roberts also has made the case that some problems simply should be left to the states. In a 1999 radio interview, he said, "We have gotten to the point these days where we think the only way we can show we're serious about a problem is if we pass a federal law, whether it is the Violence Against Women Act or anything else. The fact of the matter is conditions are different in different states, and state laws can be more relevant."

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on reauthorizing the "Violence Against Women Act" which expires on September 30, 2005:

    Actress Salma Hayek and advocates from organizations fighting domestic violence testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to push the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which expires every five years.

    The act, a measure that improves responses to domestic and dating violence, as well as stalking and sexual assault, will end Sept. 30 unless it is reauthorized.

    "This is not a Democratic or Republican bill," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who authored the act when it first passed in 1994. "This is about men and women who have been abused."

    According to the American Bar Association, 4 million women encounter domestic violence every year....Lynn Rosenthal, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said the act not only needs to be reauthorized, but provisions must also be made to the bill to increase its success. The law under consideration in Congress would allow victims up to 10 days a year of unpaid leave to take steps to better their situations, such as seeking medical and legal help or moving.

    Ninety-two percent of homeless women have been victims of abuse at some time in their lives, Rosenthal said.

    She also suggested adding programs that would address the needs of vulnerable populations, such as American Indian women, who experience domestic abuse at twice the rate of other ethnicities.

Maybe Roberts should have gone to the hearing today. He might have learned why that law IS important.

I thought that was a Pete Townsend song. Doesn't matter - it's a good one.

Senator Reid has put blood, sweat & tears into passing this Act. Watch out!

Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants

That's what BushCo's counting on - a knock-down, drag-out fight that will dominate the news for months. Yes, we need to fight this guy. But we can't take our eyes off the ball, not for a second.

John Roberts, DC Circuit

In the short time since he was confirmed by the Senate in May 2003, Judge Roberts has issued troubling dissents from decisions by the full D.C. Circuit not to reconsider two important rulings. These included a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act as applied in a California case and a ruling against Bush Administration efforts to keep secret the records concerning Vice President Cheney's energy task force.

Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003): constitutionality of Endangered Species Act

This case involved a real estate development company's contention that the application of the Endangered Species Act to its construction project in California was an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. After the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the company's project "was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the arroyo southwestern toad," placed on the Endangered Species List by the Secretary of the Interior in 1994, the company filed suit "[r]ather than accept an alternative plan proposed by the Service." Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The district court dismissed the company's complaint, and a panel of the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld the dismissal (323 F.3d 1062), following prior D.C. Circuit precedent upholding congressional authority under the Endangered Species Act. By a vote of 7-2, the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc (by the entire court) of the panel's ruling.

The only dissenters were Judges Roberts and Sentelle. All of the other Republican-appointed judges on the court - Judges Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph - joined the court's Democratic appointees in voting to deny rehearing en banc. The panel's opinion upholding the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause in this case not only followed D.C. Circuit precedent, but was also consistent with a recent ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Gibbs v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1145 (2001). The opinion in that case upholding the authority of Congress to protect endangered species on private lands was written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a conservative Republican-appointee.

Roberts's dissent in Rancho Viejo strongly suggested that he thought it would be unconstitutional to apply the Endangered Species Act in this case. By his vote to rehear the case and thus potentially reverse the district court, Roberts indicated that he may well be ready to join the ranks of such right-wing officials as Judge Michael Luttig (who dissented in Gibbs) and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor - nominated by President Bush to the Eleventh Circuit - in their efforts to severely limit the authority of Congress to protect environmental quality as well as the rights and interests of ordinary Americans.


In re: Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9205 (2003): secrecy of Vice President Cheney's energy task force

Judge Roberts was one of the dissenters in the court's 5-3 denial of a petition for rehearing en banc (with one judge not participating) filed by the Bush Administration in its continuing efforts to avoid releasing records pertaining to Vice President Cheney's energy task force. This ruling came in litigation brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club charging that the Vice President's task force had violated federal law by not making its records public. The court's ruling marked "the fourth time a judicial panel has rebuffed efforts to keep the information from the public." Carol D. Leonnig, "Energy Task Force Appeal Refused," Washington Post (Sept. 12, 2003). At the Administration's urging, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the case; a decision is expected by the end of June 2004.

Another member of the Federalist Society. Blech... 

We need to make our arguments against this guy. He may be a candidate to be Bork-ed. But we can't let them succeed in changing the subject away from the treasonous actions of Rove, Libby, Cheney, etc. I hope the Dems are ready to start multi-tasking IMMEDIATELY.

It seems he will need to recuse himself alot based on past cases.

Leheah and Schumer are on C-span 2 now.

Schumer says 2 years as a judge is not enough to know his views. Schumer voted against Roberts for the DC court of appeals. This is a new ball game now.

Schumer says Roberts' majority approval in 2003 will not affect how they vote this time. Bork was 99-0 approved for Court of Appeals, but Bork didn't get to SCOTUS.

Everyday it seems one disaster after another. Beam me up Scotty!

I'm depressed.

I've been depressed since 2000. It got a lot worse on 11/3/05. But can't get demoralized. We need to get fired up and fight BushCo with everything we've got.

Everyday it seems one disaster after another. Beam me up Scotty!

I'm depressed.

Roberts did help write a brief that stated "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Roberts' nomination to the appellate bench attracted support from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

Some 146 members of the D.C. Bar signed a letter urging his confirmation, including officials from the Clinton administration. The letter stated: "He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.

Cornyn is on C-span 2

He repeated the "70 senators" that Bush consulted.

This will be their attack mantra if the democrats are difficult.

Schumer voted NO in committee...however, in full vote he voted for confirming him so it was 99 to 0.

Why vote No then Yes...That is the trouble with the world.
So Schumer can't claim the high ground here.

Ideally, a woman would be selected to fill the next vacancy.

Oops, I meant 11/3/04... 

Schumer voted NO in committee...however, in full vote he voted for confirming him so it was 99 to 0.

Why vote No then Yes...That is the trouble with the world.
So Schumer can't claim the high ground here.

Cornyn is on C-span 2

He repeated the "70 senators" that Bush consulted.

This will be their attack mantra if the democrats are difficult.

I think Roberts is a (surprisingly) wise choice by Bush. There will certainly be spirited opposition, but probably not *TOOO* much, and he will most likely be confirmed relatively easily. I had expected Bush to make a more "in your face" pick, as that generally seems to be his style.

I also think it was a good idea to go with a man this time. The Thomas pick was foolish for making Thurgood Marshall's seat look like the "black seat." Further precedent of that type should not be set. Ideally, a woman would be selected to fill the next vacancy.