So what was John Roberts doing the first 40 years of his life

[LynneSin]

Those kids look both look under the age of 10 and I have now found out that Roberts is now 50.

Now, maybe I'm being a little over stereotypical, but all these religious right-wingers tend to start breeding kids at least as soon as they're out of college but looks like this guy didn't start until after he was 40. IS that wife his first wife or is there another one out there with some additional kids? Did he decide to raise some hell before he committed to marriage? What's the scoop.

This man could be passing moral judgement on the rest of our country and therefore I feel it's right that we should make sure that passes the muster when it comes to moral judgement (ok, yeah, I know alot good that did with us and Clarence "Long Dong Sexual Harasser" Thomas). But I still want the public to know.

Roberts looks to be the same age as John Edwards who also has kids about the same age. But we all know about Edward's first son and how he got killed around the age of 17 and Edwards & wife decided to have more. So what's the scoop on Roberts - anyone know anything?

[Lautremont]

1. Praying, rocking back and forth,

speaking in tongues, occasionally shaking his fist at those darn uppity feminists.

[underpants]

15. LOL

AwwwwwwwwwwwwwMMM

[electron_blue]

2. I'm guessing infertility here, esp since they're Catholic

Hey - they're pro-lifers AND they actually adopted. Maybe they put their money where their mouth is???

[imenja]

38. if you read the front page article of today's NYT you won't have to guess

You'll actually know the story of their marriage and children, as well as much about his background and career.

[MissB]

3. His children are adopted.

I'm just guessing here, but it could be that the couple dealt with fertility issues for a good many years before adopting.

[rinsd]

4. Basic facts...

He went to Harvard then Harvard Law. He clerked for a couple of Supremes including Renquist. He worked in the Reagan and Bush admins and then got a job with a high power DC law firm.

His children are adopted. His wife and he got married in their 40's.

Those are the basics.

The fact that "we" are so eager to go after his personal life tells me we have little other ammo. Sad day...

[tx_dem41]

8. And getting sadder with every post I read about this.

Maybe I ought to read about that "Hide Thread" function.

[Octafish]

5. Roberts was a turd of the BFEE for Reagan, Bush I.

Now he's a about to become a made slug for Bush II.

Understand he helped keep Pruneface out of jail during Iran-Contra. "I don't remember."

Here's what I mean:

Iran Contra Walsh Report

EXCERPT...

Channell had years of experience in raising funds for conservative political causes. As a result, he was asked by White House officials early in 1985 to help organize a ``Nicaraguan Refugee Fund Dinner'' to raise money for the contra cause. Channell became disenchanted with the way the dinner-planning had been conducted, and in April 1985 he approached White House political director Edward Rollins to offer his assistance in promoting President Reagan's contra policies.

He was referred to White House political aide John Roberts, who in turn directed him to Miller, a private public relations consultant who ran a firm known as International Business Communications (IBC).3 According to Channell, Roberts told him that Miller and his partner Frank Gomez ``are the White House -- outside the White House.'' 4

3 In 1984, Miller and his partner Gomez began providing public relations advice to contra leader Adolfo Calero. Calero's Nicaraguan Development Council between September 1984 and May 1985 paid $55,000 in retainer fees to IBC. (Miller, FBI 302, 7/8/87, p. 4.)

SOURCE:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_13.htm

[atreides1]

6. From Information

Both of their children are adopted, one boy age 4, and one girl age 5.

There was no reports of a previous marriage, which would have already been put out there if there had been one, and no indication of other children.

But his wife is reported to have been the vice-president for a group
called Feminists for Life, a feminist anti-abortion organization with an extensive college outreach program. She is also a lawyer with the firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

[tx_dem41]

7. Let me get this straight. I'm 42 and have no kids...soooooo...

I have no right to ever be a Supreme Court Justice. Got it. :eyes:

[LynneSin]

10. I'm nearing 40 and no kids, I"m not questioning that

I'm questioning someone who will be given the top most position for making decisions that will affect the rest of the United States. This man is coming in using his moral fiber to judge others, so therefore I think we have the right to judge the moral decisions he has made.

For all I know this guy is a total saint, but I believe we need to know.

And sure, you too can be a supreme court justice, but if you are going to be a Justice and use your personal opinions to make decisions for the rest of the country then your background better be squeaky clean!

[theboss]

12. So, all SC justices have to pass some sort of weird morality test?

And having children late in life is a negative?

I need help with this. What test do you propose?

[LynneSin]

19. You're not comprehending what I've said

I personally could care less about anyone who has (hasn't had) kids and when they've had them in life.

But this guy is a confirmation hearing away from making decisions about MY choice of when I want to have kids which makes it damn important for me to understand his choice as to waiting so long in life. He's also going to possibly make a decision on WHO I can marry so why did this guy wait so long til he made his decision. Was there a previous partner that maybe wasn't marriage material and he opted to find himself a nice Christian wife late in life to make him presentable for future jobs?

If you're not interested in messing with my choices then I could care less what anyone does. But his decisions will affect my choices, your choices and everyone elses and the choices HE makes will be based on the republican mantra that we all need to be fruitful and multiply. SO yep, it is my right!

[theboss]

24. So, if he was clearly pro-choice you wouldn't care?

Basically, your argument is that anyone with a different view on abortion than you has to answer a litany of personal questions of the "When did you stop beating your wife" variety.

Do you really want Ted Kennedy to ask him about his dating history?

[LynneSin]

25. I wouldn't but I know that the republicans would be even more harsh

and I'm talking more than just a woman's right to choose here. I'm talking choices with EVERYTHING imaginable

[bigtree]

26. this is part and parcel in fleshing out the man

Screw the media bio. I want to know WHO this conservative fuck is. I want every and anything that I can use to bring him to his knees. Anyone got a problem with this, tough shit. If I have to live with this creep imposing his judgement on issues that could affect me for the rest of my life then I'm gonna pick at him, again and again, while the gettin's good.

After he is on the bench will be too late.

[LynneSin]

27. I don't know if I need to bring him to his knees but...

I don't want another Clarence Thomas either. I mean, he seemed like such a great clean cut man until we found out about Long DOng Silver, Pub Hairs on Coke cans and Sexual Harassment.

Of course he'll probably end replacing Rehnquist.

But if this guy has done anything shady or questionable in his past that has not been shared with us, we need to know!

[tx_dem41]

30. Do you believe that not having kids until he was 40+ (and then by...

adoption) is something that shows a weak "moral fiber" and something he should be attacked on?

[LynneSin]

31. Nope - again, you're not comprehending what I'm saying

For all I know, there could be nothing there, but we don't know. This man could be in a position to make decisions on how we live our lives and from what I've read this man has put his personal decision in past decisions he has made.

I don't want one of these "DO as I say not as I've done" Clarence Thomas types. If we're wrong - so be it. But since we don't know, I think we have the right to find out!

[tx_dem41]

33. You've somewhat modified what you said in the OP....

but I keep going back to it. Can't help it. Sorry.

[LynneSin]

35. It probably could use some editing, but that is where I was going

I have a feeling this guy is going to be on the supreme court and that RoeVWade is close to death. I have a feeling that my body will no longer be my own choice and doctors will question anything strange I might do to my body - even go so far to give me pregnancies tests any time I'm in the hospital (without my knowledge) to assure that nothing is done to even the remote possiblity that I could be pregnant.

I have a feeling that and prescriptions given to me by my gynecologist will be scrutinized by my pharmist. Hell, I'm concerned that if I buy a pack of condoms, my face & name will end up on a database somewhere that I could be somehow preventing life.

I also have feeling that the choices I've made in life including staying childless and unmarried will be question including whether or not I'm even on the right team or if I'm doing "sinful' things to my body at nights when I'm behind closed doors - whether with myself or with a partner considered questionable.

I worry that I might one day be pregnant not by choice but by force and that not only will I no choice on what I want to do with that resulting pregnancy but I will be forced to marry the father or at least have him involved.

I remember when I would go to church they would pass a guest book and ask all members & guest to sign it. I'm concerned that one day that'll all go into a list and if we're not on that database our faith will be question and we'll be considered an enemy of the state.

So yes, I worry about what John Roberts did for 40 years of his life because he may be clean as a whistle or maybe he was doing something questionable that he doesn't want me to know because if I did I'll realize that he is a hypocrite to the laws he is deciding.

This isn't an position that will go away when Bush is finally out of office - he'll be there for 30-40 years so you better believe I want to know!

[tx_dem41]

36. I respect your worries and concerns...we share them....

...and no one is saying not to scrutinize the heck out of him. Its just that the example you used (age/kids) is one of the exact worries that you are worried about being judged on. In the most respectful tone I can muster, that smacks of hypocrisy.

[bigtree]

37. The OP's point is that there may be things yet to learn about this man

Who really knows this man who we are watching edge towards a lifetime position over us all? What do we know about his life outside of the propaganda?

I'm in favor of using ANYTHING (that works) to bring this man down, even if I don't hold the rhetorical inituitive to carry out all such lines of attack.

[LynneSin]

32. thank you

:D

[tx_dem41]

13. So not having children till after 40 causes a question about his

moral fiber? I stand by the statement I made in my first post.

[theboss]

9. Is this really all we got?

I'm 31 - not married and no kids. I will probably see no kids until I'm 40ish who will probably be adopted - that's the plan with my g/f at least. I'm an attorney so some day...who knows?

Do I need to prepare myself for these kinds of attacks now?

This is really really ugly.

[tx_dem41]

16. "theboss"....if I ever see you on a short list to SCOTUS in about

20 years.....you're toast! I have a memory like an elephant! ;)

Just remember to have them call you "theboss" in the newspapers.

[theboss]

18. I should have knocked someone up five years ago

Then, I would be on the fast track.

[catmandu57]

11. This is the wrong approach

The fact is the man is too damn young and inexperienced. Personall, I'd feel much better if the nominee was someone in their late fifties or early sixties.
Sure, he's argued in front of the court, and he may be a handsome, educated, moral man, but his age and my knowledge of who he's been hanging with makes me say no.
Not this man, not this time.

[imenja]

14. See today's New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/politics/21nominee.html?hp&ex=1122004800&en=3e6d2bbcdacc8242&ei=5094&partner=homepage

a four page story on his life and career

[LynneSin]

21. 4 pages sent to the NYTimes by someone in the Bush Adminstration

what aren't they telling us

[imenja]

28. yeah, Laurence Tribe is a big Bush supporter

So who do you want instead of Roberts? Janice Rodgers Brown? Priscilla Owen?

[LynneSin]

29. I want a moderate

Another David Souter - just like Dad appointment. Can we clone him? Even another Sandra Day O'Conner would be good!

[imenja]

34. If you read the article

and pay attention to what lawyers who know Roberts say, including Democrats like Tribe and David Boies (Both represented Gore in Bush v. Gore), you'll see that they consider him a moderate. Tribe said he found it odd that conservative groups are so excited about Roberts, because nothing he has seen makes him think Roberts would carry out their agenda.

Given that you don't believe what newspapers write, you could start reading his legal rulings yourself, and search West Law for articles he has published. That is how you will get a sense of his judicial temperament and philosophy, not through legal briefs he wrote on behalf of his client, the US government.

And what are the names of these moderates you prefer to Roberts? What makes you think you'll get a better choice as a second nominee rather than a worse one. What is the strategy to ensure you get a better court rather than a worse one?

You might also remember that Souter was also attacked as a right winger when he was nominated for the court. Many of the same groups opposing Roberts now opposed Souter.

[realFedUp]

17. Everything is fair game as the Bushies have said

When you don't have a long laundry list
from a short time judge, you look for other
stuff to fill out the nominee.

DU is a non-party affiliated message board website
with more than 70,000 registered subscribers of
people of all persuasions, including Republicans.
We don't follow orders here...we look for information
about everything. No one is going to control what
someone posts here, unless it breaks the DU rules.

This is an important job...lifetime...few are guaranteed
that and we are going to find out everything we need to
know and urge our Senators to understand that info
for our American future.

So, if you have a problem with ongoing information about
the Roberts, I suggest the Lounge.

[tx_dem41]

20. Funny....no one has asked her not to post.

When I get attacked personally by a fellow DUer...I get a little angry. I'm funny that way.

[realFedUp]

22. No, but asking people not to go in this direction of questioning

is useless here.

[LynneSin]

23. huh?

You're losing me in this last sentence?


So, if you have a problem with ongoing information about
the Roberts, I suggest the Lounge.

For all I know, I'm barking up the wrong tree, but as I've said his choices will affect everyone's choices and therefore we need a complete understand of everything about this guy even beyond the 4 page article in the NYTimes that was sent to them from the Bush administration.

More than likely he's clean - but should we assume that?