Comments on: Supreme Uncertainty

National Review Online: Will Chief Justice Roberts Turn the Supreme Court Conservative?

[ubrew12]

NRO tries to paint a smiley face on Robert's right wing a*ss.

[fredgrad2000]

Of course it's turning right. All you good church going christians can celebrate beating down the little people in favor of the big people. True to form for war mongers and liars.
Posted by Mimi611


Mimi - Can't have a logical discourse with someone who gets their name-calling rhetoric from the likes of MoveOn.org - become educated and post something intelligent please. The court is doing exactly what is should now; letting the law decide rather than using the courts to usurp the legislative majority.

[fredgrad2000]

By posting articles by NRO, CBS loses a lot of credibility. CBS wants to seem unbiased and independent, it should stick to it's own people.
Posted by fairandbal

They post at least as many articles by The New Republic and The Nation. And they place them in the "opinion" section, clearly labeled as such, which should allow someone of even minimal intellect to discern that these are articles with an...OPINION, from editorial publications!!! I'm personally shocked they post articles by NRO or the Weekly Standard since there has never been any question that CBS is a left-leaning organization (leaning so far in the last few years; most are amazed it hasn't fallen over!!)

[guysdigdirt]

the Roberts Court is now dealing with political reality. Their decisions are unpopular. Certainly, George Bush is also facing the music.
Posted by Antillo99
-----------------------------

It is interesting to see who has a spine and who does not when they are faced with having to stand up for their actions.

Bush is standing tall in having done what he thought best.

Clinton, Hillary has changed her tune and turned her back on the troops even thought she admits our Troops will need to be there for another 10 years.

Clinton, Bill lied about his actions, said he did not do it, then lied that he had a differnt meaning for his actions than the rest of the world, and Hillary stood by him for politiacl and power reasons alone.

Do you want a spineless liar or a man that will take responsibility for his actions. Roberts and Bush have the character, spine and abliliy to make the right deciions, popular or not.

[guysdigdirt]

Believe O'Conner was the "swing" in that vote, and hope she's lying awake at night with a guilty conscience for what she allowed to happen.

And to NRO, your subscribers and followers, have YOU ever had an attack of conscience, guilty or otherwise, for ANYthing you've ever done or not done? Do you have a conscience? Or is - we must win, we must be right, we must profit - the only code you follow?

Thank You
BC Kelly
Tallahassee Fla


Posted by BC_Kelly
---------------------

YOu seem to be a sore loser who knows your own words and feelings well. "we must win, we must be right, we must profit". Get over the past, move on to the future and get true and correct information before you form opinions.

Oh yeah, O'conner is happy the 2000 elections came off as they did, she knows Afgahni would be a hard language to learn as would have been our new language if Gore had been elected.

[guysdigdirt]

Of course it's turning right. All you good church going christians can celebrate beating down the little people in favor of the big people. True to form for war mongers and liars.
Posted by Mimi611
--------------------------------
Mimi, I know it is hard for you to fathom but it is true, the laws should favor the majority, or the big people as you put it, rahter than the minority, or little peopel.

And your mommy should have taught you that just because you do not get what you want, do not throw a tantrum and call names.

[guysdigdirt]

By posting articles by NRO, CBS loses a lot of credibility. CBS wants to seem unbiased and independent, it should stick to it's own people.
Posted by fairandbal
---------------

CBS is anything but impartial and fair. They have had biased reporting for years and do not hide it.

[sjw1253]

My personal opinion is that the Supreme Court and the rules that regulate the terms, etc. need revised.

What concerns me the most is that the justices do not have anyone overseeing them. They are no better than federal government workers (only worse) - who have no one overseeing them - no accountability for their actions and reasons for their decisions.

The fact is that they are there to uphold constitutional rule. I know that the constitution can be interepreted in many different ways - but the fact is that they should be required to keep their personal feelings, biases, and political ties out of all of their decisions.

The key is that there needs to be objectivity - what is good for one should be good for all. Would this decision be good for every single human living in the U.S.?

[opfor311]

Sam,

It's not too surpising that Alder would be thorough, since he is a professor of law and director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The style of writing that he has employed is probably a professional hazard, since he probably has to argue case law with his students.

That being said, I know that I try to balance out what the various legal minds on both the left and right have to say. NRO is a pretty good source for a particular point of view, and Time and Newsweek are as well. But you have to take them all with a grain of salt.

After all, the mottos of Military Intellegence are 'Trust, but verify' and 'In God we trust, all others we monitor'.

[fairandbal]

By posting articles by NRO, CBS loses a lot of credibility. CBS wants to seem unbiased and independent, it should stick to it's own people.