different takes on this most holy jurist:
http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf
a history of his political donations:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2005_07_19_mpetrelis_archive.html#112181755570419005
this one's biased:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
roberts has his say on different legal matters. it's the one in which he states that violence against women should be left to the states, because it's (i assume he means the violence) is different in different states that i begin to wonder about him:
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
a very good bio:
http://courtinginfluence.net/nominee.php?nominee_id=55
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/roberts.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
now, correct me (I know you will) if I'm wrong, but
-didn't George W say he was considering a woman?
-didn't you use the name "John Roberts" and "Bushed" in the same sentence?
-perhaps there's some secret information you know about Mr./Ms. Roberts?
Perhaps Bush is actually nominating the court's first he/she. He said he would consider women, but seems to have found someone with a male sounding name. I've yet to see under the judicial robes (as loose as they appear, I think they will be as hard to penetrate as a nun's habit).
Post a Comment