Re: Clinton put Starr as the issue to avoid the issue of lying under oath

Wrong again.

Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T

EARL DOYLE <lesjulia1@gmail.com> wrote:

>Decisions by Roberts below, i read them all, to me he's left of
>center, in other words left of conservatives he's not far-right AT ALL
>
>-----
>
>On January 17, 2006, Roberts dissented along with Antonin Scalia and
>Clarence Thomas in Gonzales v. Oregon, which held that the Controlled
>Substances Act does not allow the United States Attorney General to
>prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of
>the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law. The point of
>contention in this case was largely one of statutory interpretation,
>not federalism.
>
>On March 6, 2006, Roberts wrote the unanimous decision in Rumsfeld v.
>Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights that colleges accepting
>federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite
>university objections to the Clinton administration-initiated "don't
>ask, don't tell" policy.
>
>[edit]Fourth Amendment
>Roberts wrote his first dissent in Georgia v. Randolph (2006). The
>majority's decision prohibited police from searching a home if both
>occupants are present but one objected and the other consented.
>Roberts criticized the majority opinion as inconsistent with prior
>case law and for partly basing its reasoning on its perception of
>social custom. He said the social expectations test was flawed because
>the Fourth Amendment protects a legitimate expectation of privacy, not
>social expectations.[31]
>
>[edit]Notice and opportunity to be heard
>Although Roberts has often sided with Scalia and Thomas, Roberts
>provided a crucial vote against their position in Jones v. Flowers. In
>Jones, Roberts sided with liberal justices of the court in ruling
>that, before a home is seized and sold in a tax-forfeiture sale, due
>diligence must be demonstrated and proper notification needs to be
>sent to the owners. Dissenting were Anthony Kennedy along with Antonin
>Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito did not participate, while
>Roberts's opinion was joined by David Souter, Stephen Breyer, John
>Paul Stevens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
>
>[edit]Abortion
>On the Supreme Court, Roberts has indicated he supports some abortion
>restrictions. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the only significant
>abortion case the court has decided since Roberts joined, he voted
>with the majority to uphold the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth
>Abortion Ban Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five-justice
>majority, distinguished Stenberg v. Carhart, and concluded that the
>court's previous decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey did not
>prevent Congress from banning the procedure. The decision left the
>door open for future as-applied challenges, and did not address the
>broader question of whether Congress had the authority to pass the
>law.[32] Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion,
>contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Casey
>should be reversed; Roberts declined to join that opinion.
>
>[edit]Equal protection clause
>Roberts opposes the use of race in assigning students to particular
>schools, including for purposes such as maintaining integrated
>schools.[33] He sees such plans as discrimination in violation of the
>constitution's equal protection clause and Brown v. Board of
>Education.[33][34] In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
>School District No. 1, the court considered two voluntarily adopted
>school district plans that relied on race to determine which schools
>certain children may attend. The court had held in Brown that "racial
>discrimination in public education is unconstitutional,"[35] and
>later, that "racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal,
>state, or local governmental actor, ... are constitutional only if
>they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling
>governmental interests,"[36] and that this "[n]arrow tailoring ...
>require[s] serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral
>alternatives."[37] Roberts cited these cases in writing for the
>Parents Involved majority, concluding that the school districts had
>"failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit
>racial classifications to achieve their stated goals."[38] In a
>section of the opinion joined by four other Justices, Roberts added
>that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
>discriminating on the basis of race."
>
>[edit]Free speech
>Roberts authored the 2007 student free speech case Morse v. Frederick,
>ruling that a student in a public school-sponsored activity does not
>have the right to advocate drug use on the basis that the right to
>free speech does not invariably prevent the exercise of school
>discipline.[39]
>
>On April 20, 2010, in United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court
>struck down an animal cruelty law. Roberts, writing for an 8-1
>majority, found that a federal statute criminalizing the commercial
>production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals,
>was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to
>freedom of speech. The Court held that the statute was substantially
>overbroad; for example, it could allow prosecutions for selling photos
>of out-of-season hunting.[40]
>
>On 5/28/12, jgg1000a <jgg1000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> When Obama is described as right of Center, even then Roberts is NOT
>> Far Right...
>>
>> On May 28, 2:19 pm, lynn...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Roberts is an issue. His far right viewpoint leaves us cold. L
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: jgg1000a <jgg1...@hotmail.com>
>>> To: Open Debate Political Forum IMHO <opendebateforum@googlegroups.com>
>>> Sent: Wed, May 23, 2012 8:20 am
>>> Subject: Clinton put Starr as the issue to avoid the issue of lying under
>>> oath
>>>
>>> Now Obama is seeking to make Roberts the issue rather than the
>>> onstitutionality of Obamacare... If it fails, SCOTUS is wrong, If
>>> COTUS says it is Constitutional then Roberts is a Hero... Assuming
>>> bamacare is Constitutional regardless of what SCOTUS says a lot about
>>> he Left's thinking and diversity of opinion --- "we are right not
>>> atter what"... How sad how Progressiveism has become so narrow-
>>> inded and statist...
>>> --
>>> ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Open
>>> ebate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>>> o post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>>> o unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>>> or more options, visit this group
>>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
>To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en