roberts confirmed

Bush sr. was, of course, incorrect about Thomas. But Roberts is in a different league. I'm very pleased to see Roberts on the Court.

How fast can John Roberts run a half marathon? More importantly, do you think he could run it faster than Osama bin Laden? If so, by how much?

Roberts is by far the top runner in the S.C.

He would kick Osama's ass because Bin L would be tripping on the dress he's wearing. And the frick'n AK47 is hard to lug around.

I need to read up on the Congressional record because I want to find out what the hearings found in regards to Roberts thoughts on:

-John Gregorek Out at Brown

-Mayeroff's DNF at Berlin

-Wisconisn at the Big 10's

-Rutgers men

-York Cross Country runners arrested for arson

-Caffeine Story in Runner's World

-Whether there is better running in NC or SC?

-The the worst thing he eats on a routine basis is

-And who is the greatest African athlete ever? Aouita, Yfter, Gebresselassie, EL G or Bekele, and most importantly why?

I promised I will pull out before anything happens.

I'm sure he's a fast runner but I'm interested to know how fast. Can anyone tell me? Venture to guess?

White Male, average build, over 40 years old. I bet he could go 22-23 min for 5k.

Where are all the "Bush can't do anything right" folks on this one. You have to admit this was a great choice for a supreme. And just because Roe v Wade is about to get chopped up, faster than an SUV during 5 dollar a gallon prices, shouldn't diminish that fact.

Locknload wrote:

Where are all the "Bush can't do anything right" folks on this one. You have to admit this was a great choice for a supreme.

Yeah, let's coronate the guy best ever before he's even sat on a case....

...or maybe you should offer this up after he's written a few opinions?

Souter was thought to be a conservative when he first got on the court. I realize some of you are shock with the words Souter and conservative mentioned in the same sentence.

Time will tell what Roberts is like.

He is replacing renquist who was a reliably conservative vote.

By conservative I mean on that has already read the constitution. I doubt O'Conner ever did.

He looks in good shape I'd say Roberts could go 23:50ish 5k

I understand what you're saying but if you watched any of the confirmation hearings then you would know that this guy is sharp and has a nose for what the law is all about. And how the laws were intended to be interpretted. That said Im sure there will be times that he makes a decision I disagree with but I disagree with many laws currently on the books now so I won't be surprised when it happens. Quite the contrary, I'm expecting it.

Supreme Court justices have a way of being unpredictable. Eisenhower was not big on the racial-equality bandwagon but his nominee William Brennan was, while Kennedy's Whizzer White often went the opposite way. Nixon's own nominee forced him to release the Watergate tapes. Poppy Bush's nominee David Souter has been consistently on the left wing, while Clinton's Breyer has generally been to the right. Of recent justices, only Thomas and Scalia have behaved according to the script. I would have been more comfortable with someone else, but you just never really know.

jsquire wrote:

while Clinton's Breyer has generally been to the right.

To the right of what, his briefcase?

No major changes in the right to life/abortion rights issue should be expected w/ Roberts on the court. Roe v. Wade has been reviewed about 38 times and has not been overturned and won't be now. It is a precedent that has grown roots, limbs and leaves, i.e. super-precedent. It may get a small trimming of its leaves, but it is not going to lose any limbs.

Dougruns26 wrote:

No major changes in the right to life/abortion rights issue should be expected w/ Roberts on the court. Roe v. Wade has been reviewed about 38 times and has not been overturned and won't be now. It is a precedent that has grown roots, limbs and leaves, i.e. super-precedent. It may get a small trimming of its leaves, but it is not going to lose any limbs.

I agree with you. Having Roe v. Wade on the books is much better for the Republican party politically than overturning it. If it actually is overturned, moderate women will leave the party in droves and there will be a huge backlash, while the base turns to a different issue or tries to impose bans in the states, both of which will take away from their activism towards the national party.

Ummm...Roe v Wade is a non issue as far as Roberts is concerned. Bush replaced a conservative with a conservative. The next nomination is really key.

The biggest bs law I want to see overturned is the recent New London decision.

Guest of the Boards wrote:

The biggest bs law I want to see overturned is the recent New London decision.

I've been surprised by the uproar generated by Kelo v. New London. I think that the decision was entirely consistent with Supreme Court precedent. In any event, the states and, perhaps, the U.S. Congress can choose to limit eminent domain power of state and local governments if they choose. I don't see any good reason for the Supremes to revisit the issue any time soon. Moreover, since both Rehnquist and O'Connor dissented in that case, their replacements won't provide any additional votes to overrule Kelo.

oldguy wrote:

Guest of the Boards wrote:

The biggest bs law I want to see overturned is the recent New London decision.

I've been surprised by the uproar generated by Kelo v. New London. I think that the decision was entirely consistent with Supreme Court precedent. In any event, the states and, perhaps, the U.S. Congress can choose to limit eminent domain power of state and local governments if they choose. I don't see any good reason for the Supremes to revisit the issue any time soon. Moreover, since both Rehnquist and O'Connor dissented in that case, their replacements won't provide any additional votes to overrule Kelo.

I don't know about precedent. I do know that allowing municipalities to take land from private landowners for purposes of economic development is frightening.

Guest of the Boards wrote:

I don't know about precedent. I do know that allowing municipalities to take land from private landowners for purposes of economic development is frightening.

I agree. But so is taking land from private landowners for purposes of roads and parks and courthouses and prisons and memorials. Government power is scary.

Souter redux wrote:By conservative I mean one that has already read the constitution. I doubt O'Conner ever did.