Kennedy nailing Roberts on poor civil rights record

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

This is kinda scary about Roberts.

He seems to only care about intent to discriminate rather than whether the impact is discrimanatory.

Among other things.

[IndianaGreen]

1. He is a rightwinger!

Duh! Rightwingers believe in states' rights when it was needed to keep "segregation forever." Rightwingers do not believe in states' rights when it was need it for Bush v. Gore.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

2. True generally

But if you can't even get a SCOTUS nominee to at least say that discrimination is bad period, that is a giant red flag.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. This guy raises banners of red flags!

Catherine Crier's spot on...Unfortunately, with Bush's judicial nominations across the board it's too late.

This country will not be back to what it used to be for another couple of generations. :cry:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-crier/contempt-how-the-right_b_7199.html

"...

Of course, the key to each and every one of these issues is the federal courts. And this drives the extreme Right to distraction. They have nothing but disdain for the founding fathers' belief in three branches of government and the prescient system of checks and balances. Indeed, they are rewriting America's revolutionary history to accommodate their point of view.

For all of those Americans who believe that our democracy is safe, you are wrong. Today, the radical Right is winning, and they know it. Sooner rather than later, we may be living in a very different country, a country that had been ours, a country that will be theirs."

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

7. True. Our hope with regard to

the court is that historically, many SCOTUS justices have in time gravitated to the left, more liberal in the course of their terms.

I think things start to look a little different from that high in the sky perspective than they might from a lower court or office.

Doesn't always help, witness Scalia and Thomas especially.

As for the nation in general, I have been in great turmoil over the way things have been going.

I can only hope that we get the voting problems under control.

[gratuitous]

3. They can parse it pretty fine when they want to, can't they?

Sorry Ass Bigot: "Okay, so only the people who look, act and think like me got the jobs. But I didn't mean to discriminate, your honor."

Judge Roberts: "Oh, well. If you didn't mean to shut out every qualified minority applicant, I suppose it's all right. Not guilty!" {Bangs gavel}

Sounds a lot like the Washington Post, which protected the identity of its White House source who claimed that Gov. Bianco hadn't declared a state of emergency five days before she actually did. The Post said it wasn't going to name the source because even though the person told a demonstrable falsehood, they couldn't determine if that person intended to mislead the Post.

Compare and contrast with the Post's high dudgeon over the National Guard memos aired by CBS. Although, oddly enough, in that instance, the story was right, but the source was suspect and outed. In the Post's case, the story was wrong, and the source was protected.

Similarly, Judge Roberts apparently feels that no matter what the outcome of your conduct, if you didn't mean for it to happen, it's okay. Boy, would I like to be a murder defendant before him! "But Your Honor, although I bludgeoned the decedent featureless, I didn't mean for him to die." "Oh, well, okay. Not guilty!"

Yeah. Right.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

4. Exactly!

It's one small concept for legislation, but a gigantic loophole for discrimination.

:thumbsup:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

6. Or he would if Specter would quit telling him to shut up. n/t

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

8. Yes, that was annoying!

:spank: