You know better than that. Roberts didn't lock her up; you know it and you said it anyway.
He simply refused to award her any money for the obvious overreaction of the officers. I don't know the case, but the burden of proof would seem to be on the plaintiff. So, you equate finding against a plaintiff in a civil suit, where a young girl was, quite apparently treated poorly, with what Hitler and the Nazis did. Unbelievable. This is a very good illustration of what really bugs me about this forum specifically and some on the left in general. I thoroughly enjoy a good debate and even a little bit of getting under each others skin occasionally, but some of you can really throw out some nasty stuff without much thought put into it. Using the above example again, there are legitimate reasons to oppose Roberts. Someone like me may not agree with you, but that doesn't mean they aren't legit. However, to call the man a Nazi just ruins your credibility and coarsens the debate with unnecessary epithets when there could be arguments with substance. Bob, you can do better.
I'm not sure Bush will nominate a right-wing extremist for the opening. Bob, as you are no doubt aware, you described Roberts in your description of a right-wing extremist, and I wouldn't call him that. A right-wing extremist would be someone like the justice in Alabama (maybe it was Mississippi) who wanted the ten commandments statue on the grounds of the courthouse and claims that they inform the law. That's an extreme view; well outside the mainstream of jurisprudence.
I'm more concerned with who the nominee for Chief Justice is going to be. I don't think Bush will nominate outside the court for that position, so my bet is on Scalia. Now that will be cause for concern, because he is far more radical than Rehnquist ever thought about being. His jurisprudence is a joke, but Democrats will confirm him anyway, even though they can oppose him without going to substantive issues.
I am going to agree with Geistaat on this one. I believe that the actually nomination was actually a political distraction from the nomination of a Chief Justice. Roberts may be a right winger, no one can really know until the legal proceedings begin. My suspicion of Roberts is that in all probability, he is probably more closely aligned with a pro-corporate agenda than race. Keep in mind, pro-corporate usually means pro-wealthy and anti-poor. This is more in line with the Bush administration which has actively sought out officials that are born out the the corporate management of America. Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, are all managers...not politicians. If you take a look at many of Robert's rulings, they are predominately pro-business with a slight edge to conservatism.
I agree 100% with g on Scalia, very dangerous indeed and he may act as a balancing act with Bush and the religious right. It is obvious that the religious right was a little muted when it came to the nomination of Roberts....it was a shrewd move by the Republicans, because in the end the Chief Justice position may be more important.
