John Roberts, Jr to become a Supreme

[lookout123]

in each of those cases he took a client, argued their case to the best of his ability, and a judge or jury made a decision. are you suggesting he is unqualified for a job because you don't like the clients or the issues that he was paid to argue?

Elspode: i am personally against abortion. that doesn't mean i am going to fight to make it illegal. just because an individual has a personal disdain for a practice, policy, or procedure doesn't mean they will ignore the law and constitution to force their opinion.

BigV: obviously any information that we analyze will be filtered through our own experiences and values. that is unavoidable. i respect and want someone on the bench who doesn't rule BASED on those personal wishes. i want someone who will look at the issues and decide A) is this consistant with the rule book known as the constitution? B) is it consistant with the current laws? C) are the current laws consistant with the constitution? whether or not i like a practice can't change the answers to those questions.

Marichiko: i don't know much about this guy so the jury is still out. i know that Schumer doesn't like him because he doesn't know what his personal views are. that right there makes me like Roberts a little. the fact that he once argued against abortion is less important to me than his acknowledgement that it is the current law and it is consistant with constitutional rights.