Really..John Roberts?

• Really..John Roberts? - gt
  • Roberts article - gt
  • Can't open the link.nm - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

my initial uninformed "gut" reaction was that he was a "good guy."  In fact, I had to check my pulse to make sure I still had one because I found myself approving of something Bush did.

The fact that he would take on this kind of case pro bono just confirms that my "gut" reaction was right (hopefully).

Sometimes karma has a way of kicking someone right smack in the butt when they come from a place of hatred, inequality and superiority.  I truly hope this is the case here and that Bush, even if inadvertently, happened to finally make a good decision.

I believe his role was a bit larger than you suggested.  "Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. provided significant help to gay activists in a 1996 landmark Supreme Court case protecting gays from discrimination based upon their sexual orientation, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

At the time, Roberts was a lawyer specializing in appellate work for Hogan & Hartson, a large D.C.-based law firm. Walter A. Smith, Jr., then head of the pro bono department of the firm, told the paper that Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

At any rate, he's been portrayed him as a fair-minded, tolerant, fair person, and I'm glad President Bush nominated him because I believe we need a person like that in the Supreme Court.  I also hope if the president has another appointment to make that he chooses Alberto Gonzalez, who I also think has those qualities.

Have you even bothered to take the time to notice that EVERY SINGLE POST ON THIS BOARD about Judge Roberts is a POSITIVE POST???

What planet are you from, anyway?  Is your life so pathetic that the only pleasure you get is from stalking people on this board in the bizarre way you do and constantly put them down personally?  Dang.  You need a Happy Meal, dude. 

Secondly, to my democratic friends, have any of you watched the John Roberts' confirmation hearings?  I have been watching for two days now..In fact, right now they are in recess, so I thought..let me check out the MTStars political board..MSN news video site on the computer has live hearings and they are fascinating..I have to tell you, so far I kind of like Judge Roberts..My only hesitation is Bush recommended him..

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

(08-05) 19:27 PDT DENVER (AP) --

A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays — free assistance the Supreme Court nominee didn't mention in a questionnaire he filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The revelation didn't appear to dent his popularity among conservative groups nor quell some of the opposition of liberal groups fearful he could help overturn landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to an abortion.

An attorney who worked with Roberts cautioned against making guesses about his personal views based on his involvement in the Colorado case, which gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.

"It may be that John and others didn't see this case as a gay-rights case," said Walter Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Roberts' former Washington law firm, Hogan & Hartson.

Smith said Roberts may instead have viewed the case as a broader question of whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited singling out a particular group of people that wouldn't be protected by an anti-discrimination law.

"I don't think this gives you any clear answers, but I think it's a factor people can and should look at to figure out what this guy is made of and what kind of Supreme Court justice he would make," Smith said.

On Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans released two memos by Roberts when he was as an assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. In one, Roberts argued that President Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of tributes to God in schools.

In the other, Roberts writes that Reagan shouldn't grant presidential pardons to bombers of abortion clinics. "The president unequivocally condemns such acts of violence," he wrote in a draft reply to a lawmaker seeking Reagan's position. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals."

Meanwhile, the Justice Department denied a request by Judiciary Committee Democrats for Roberts' writings on 16 cases he handled when he was principal deputy solicitor general during President George H.W. Bush's administration. The department also declined to provide the materials, other than those already publicly available, to The Associated Press and other organizations that sought them under the Freedom of Information Act.

"We cannot provide to the committee documents disclosing the confidential legal advice and internal deliberations of the attorneys advising the solicitor general," assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote Friday to the eight committee Democrats.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, said Roberts made decisions whether to pursue legal appeals in more than 700 cases. "The decision to keep these documents under cover is disappointing," Leahy said.

The gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.

Gay rights groups sued, and the measure was declared unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

Roberts' role in the case, disclosed this week by the Los Angeles Times, included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.

Dubofsky, who did not return calls Friday, said Roberts helped develop the strategy that the law violated the equal protection clause in the Constitution — and prepared her for tough questions from conservative members of the court. She recalled how Justice Antonin Scalia asked for specific legal citations.

"I had it right there at my fingertips," she told the Times. "Roberts was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue. He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Dubofsky had never argued before the Supreme Court. Smith said she called his firm and asked specifically for help from Roberts, who argued 39 cases before the court before he was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in 2003.

Smith said any lawyer at Hogan & Hartson would have had the right to decline to work on any case for moral, religious or other reasons.

"If John had felt that way about this case, given that he is a brilliant lawyer, he would have just said, `This isn't my cup of tea' and I would have said, `Fine, we'll look for something else that would suit you,'" Smith said.

The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which helped move the case through the state and federal courts, said Roberts' involvement raised more questions about him than it answered because of his "much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose," executive director Kevin Cathcart said.

"This is one more piece that will be added to the puzzle in the vetting of John Roberts' nomination," Cathcart said.

The Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said his support for Roberts' nomination has not diminished. "He wasn't the lead lawyer. They only asked him to play a part where he would be Scalia in a mock trial," Sheldon said.

Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said Roberts' involvement was "certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values," but did not prompt new concerns about his nomination, which the group supports.

"That's what lawyers do — represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not," the group said in a statement.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/05/national/w135401D98.DTL

Roberts resisted women’s rights

1982-86 memos detail court nominee’s skepticism

var cssList = new Array(); getCSS("3216310")

By Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith and Jo Becker

Updated: 11:48 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2005

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

In internal memos, Roberts urged President Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women equally to men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."

getCSS("3176006")

Roberts's thoughts on what he called "perceived problems" of gender bias are contained in a vast batch of documents, released yesterday, that provide the clearest, most detailed mosaic so far of his political views on dozens of social and legal issues. Senators have said they plan to mine his past views on such topics, which could come before the high court, when his confirmation hearings begin the day after Labor Day.

---

---

Covering a period from 1982 to 1986 -- during his tenure as associate counsel to President Reagan -- the memos, letters and other writings show that Roberts endorsed a speech attacking "four decades of misguided" Supreme Court decisions on the role of religion in public life, urged the president to hold off saying AIDS could not be transmitted through casual contact until more research was done, and argued that promotions and firings in the workplace should be based entirely on merit, not affirmative action programs.

In October 1983, Roberts said that he favored creation of a national identity card to prove American citizenship, even though the White House counsel's office was officially opposed to the idea. He wrote that such measures were needed in response to the "real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration."

He also, the documents illustrate, played a bit role in the Reagan administration's efforts in Nicaragua to funnel assistance to CIA-supported "contras" who were trying overthrow the Marxist Sandinista government.

In one instance, Roberts had a direct disagreement with the senator who now wields great influence over his confirmation prospects, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). In a 1983 memo, Roberts was dismissive of a "white paper" on violent crime that had been drafted by one of Specter's aides. Noting that the paper proposed new expenditures of $8 billion to $10 billion a year, Roberts wrote: "The proposals are the epitome of the 'throw the money at the problem' approach repeatedly rejected by Administration spokesmen."

President Bush nominated Roberts, now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, four weeks ago.

Yesterday's deluge of more than 38,000 pages of documents has particular political significance -- because of their content and their timing. The papers, held in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California, are likely to be the last major set of written material from Roberts's past to become public before his confirmation hearings.

Extensive insight
Senate Democrats have been pressing the Bush administration to release Roberts's files from the highest-ranking position he has held in the executive branch, as the Justice Department's deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush. But administration officials have asserted that those records should remain private on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.

Previously released documents, from slightly earlier in the Reagan era, when Roberts was a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, have established that the young attorney was immersed in civil rights issues of the time, including school desegregation, voting rights and bias in hiring and housing. The new batch provides the most extensive insight into Roberts's views of efforts to expand opportunity for women in the workplace and higher education.

Fool me once, shame on you....etc.

I feel better knowing Congress is smart enough to not believe BU_ _ SH _ _ twice from this farce of a president.

Roberts: Iraq Will Affect Future War Votes
Experience With Faulty Data Has Made Senators More Wary, Panel Chairman Says

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 14, 2005; A04

The Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said yesterday that one lesson of the faulty prewar intelligence on Iraq is that senators would take a hard look at intelligence before voting to go to war.

I think a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action, Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) said on Fox News Sunday.

We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore, he added. We get into preemptive oversight and do digging in regards to our hard targets.

He said that agreement has been reached on the Phase 2 review that the intelligence panel is doing to look into whether the Bush administration exaggerated or misused prewar intelligence. The review may not be finished this year, he said.

The intelligence panel vice chairman, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), also appearing on Fox, called the review absolutely useful because if it is the fact that they [the Bush administration] created intelligence or shaped intelligence in order to bring American opinion along to support them in going to war, that's a really bad thing -- it should not ever be repeated.

Appearing on CNN's Late Edition, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said the White House is supporting the study, adding: I think that what you're going to find is that the statements by the administration had backing at the time from accepted intelligence sources.

He said that when administration statements turned out to be wrong, that was because the underlying intelligence was not true, but that's not the same as manipulating intelligence, and that is not misleading the American people.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), appearing with Roberts on Late Edition, said that Iraq became the center of terrorism after the March 2003 invasion.

I'm afraid we're going to see Iraq is not only the center of the war on terror, which it was not before we attacked Iraq, but now it is going to, I'm afraid, export it.

He added that Iraq has become the heartland of terrorism. It was not before we attacked.

Levin, a member of both the Senate intelligence committee and Armed Services Committee, has been a leading critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war.

Levin also said that the United States must get allies, as many as we can, including in the Muslim world because this is a form of fanatic Islam which has to be defeated by the moderate Islamic people.

In a column in yesterday's Washington Post, former senator John Edwards (N.C.), the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, said the failures of the Bush administration turned Iraq into a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists [and] has made fighting the global war on terrorist organizations more difficult rather than less.

The president and his senior aides have said since before the invasion that Washington went to war primarily because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States and its neighbors because of his connection to terrorists. Once fighting began, they argued that Iraq was the central front in the battle against terrorism.

In his Veterans Day speech on Friday, the president turned his original argument around, saying, The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity, and therefore, We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090111_shame.htm

I think its the one glimmer of hope the fact that he at least had the decency to stand up for gays rights to lease an apartment and other civil liberties. 

What I continue to find ironic is how the conservatives could see this as a possible negative "ideology" for their party. 

ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg reports: It wasn't until Sunday night that John McCain, after meeting with his four top advisers, finally decided he could not tap independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to be his running mate. One adviser, tasked with taking the temperature of the conservative base, had strongly made the case to McCain that it would be a disaster for the party and that the base would revolt. McCain concluded he could not go that route.

I could feel a little sorry for him if he were not so mean and willing to do anything to win.  For pete sake, he is 72 years old.  he has few years left.  He has a lovely family and many great homes.  Whey does he not enjoy his final years getting to know his children?  He was in Washington and only went home on the weekends.  Sometimes we just have to realize that we are not going to achieve a dream.  I have accepted I will never be a naturally thin person. It took 30 years, but I know it now.  He has been honored for his service and had many years in Washington. he is putting so much wear and tear on his aging body with the physical demands of campaigning.  He is doing damage to his cardiovascular system with the seething anger and contempt.  If my grandfather at age 72 decided to run for mayor, I would say come on grandpa, that is ridiculous.. 

At 72 he still has quite a few years left, God willing.  AND, he has more experience than Obama will ever have.  He knows more about foreign policy, war, economy, everything than Obama will ever know.  Obama with 143 days experience?  He can't even talk without a teleprompter.

   You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.
 
    You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of  experience of being a surgeon.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.
 
    You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.
 
   You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience. 

Finally spoke up for the American people.  Only time will tell if it was soon enough.  I hope it was.  You showed us all that you care about us.  You showed us you don't believe in socialism (redistribution of wealth).  You validated our beliefs that you will fight for what is right for all Americans.  You pointed out Obama's unfortunate beliefs and the people he associates with, the health care system he plans to socialize, the increased taxes, the slick lawyer talk.  You reminded us that Biden was wrong in a lot of his votes and that most of the time Obama didn't even vote (called present).  You showed us that despite the many socialist liberals in the country Obama is not the right person for the job. 

I don't care what you look like John.  I don't care that you can't "slick talk" us all.  I don't care that you don't have a full head of hair and that you can't lift your arms above your head.  I don't care that you can't play basketball well and look impeccable in a suit.  What I do care about are your policies and your beliefs and how that will affect my life.  So you may not be the prettiest of the bunch, but I know that a lot of people who say they don't care that Obama is a black man and continue to point out that they are not racists, are the same bunch that will point out that your not nice looking like Obama is.

So knowing that you have the American people's best interest at heart, and you care more about the people than your campaign.  You fight to the end (and so does your running mate) for us because you believe it is the right thing to do.

That is why I am voting for you.

*Voted to eliminate overtime pay for 8 million American workers

*Voted to allow companies to cut and eliminate pensions for their long-term employees.

*Voted to weaken OSHA and workplace regulations designed to prevent injuries on the job.

* Voted against the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R.800) 6/26/07.

*Voted for a National-Right-To-Work (for less) Act (S.1788) 7/10/96

*Voted to allow employers to hire permanent replacements during a strike (S.55) 7/13/94.

*Voted against granting collective bargaining rights for state and local police andfirefighters (H.R. 3061) 11/6/01.

*Voted against granting collective b argaining rights for TSA screeners (S.4) 3/7/07.

*Keating-5:  Federal regulators wanted to seize control of the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan Association but McCain intervented to try to prevent that from happening.

*McCain claims he paid for the Keating for the flights to his private home in the Bahamas, but he conveniently could not produce the receipts.  Keating donated $112,000 to McCain's campaigns for the House and then the Senate.

*His current campaign for president is essentially run by lobbyists with close ties to big oil companies, Fannie Mae, UBS and Blackwater.  FedEx Corp, founder and CEO, Fred Smith is a close friend who Mccain views as a perfect candidate for U.S. Secretary of Defense.

*McCain voted to give tax breaks to companies that send American jobs overseas.  He voted against overtime pay, against Davis-Bacon protections and against extending unemployment insurance.

* "I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed," McCain said on Meet the Press onJune 15, 2005. "And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement nad support of President Bush."

*McCain mirrors Bush in another important way:  his indifference to the plight of Americans who fall victim to disaster.  He voted twice against creating a commission to investigate the botched response to Hurricane Katrina--and later he said he voted for every investigation into Katrina's aftermath.

*McCain is the staunchest advocate fo free trade in the U.S. Senate.  He voted for every disastrous free-trade agreement since NAFTA.  He strongly supports a trade deal with Colombia.  He's a leader in the effort to open the border to dangerous trucks from Mexico.

Just a note about Palin's Wasilla Police Department.  Their employees voted 29-9 to join the Teamsters Local 959 by a vote of 29-9.  The election was recently certified.

....................

How any serious middle class American worker can vote for this man is beyond me. 

I am referring to the following "post." 

McCain's body language just is not right.
McCain always comes across as poisonous, ready to explode. His eyes were almost popping out of his head.

His body language just is not right!

I guess your body language would not be right either if you had every bone broken in your body in a concentration camp as he has had every bone broken in his body.  I guess if his facial features and eyes are not to your liking, maybe you should be shut in a chamber and tortured and have every bone in your body broken.  Not only that, but pulled up on a rope and have your legs tied behind you and around your arms so that your ribs start cracking, and you are hung suspended like that.    I guess maybe your obama boy, smooth talking, prancing candidate could come and save you.... Maybe he could have a rally for you so Bruce can be there screeching "born in the USA, but love communism.  Yeh, maybe they could do that for you.

An American hero and you say things like that.  How sad for you.  How very sad.

Just something else to ponder. Is there a place for him in the admin? What is his special area of expertise?

I'm not thinking the cabinet, but just any position where he could do a good job?

He has a special tonight. It will be on too late for me to watch it, but he was on The View today and they questioned him on his views for MediCare and SS.

Now, for those young 'uns, I can see where he is coming from, but he made me furious. He thinks the elderly should fend for themselves because there won't be anything left by the time he's ready to retire. If they don't have savings, that's their problem, then they need to go to charities.

What he doesn't understand is that a lot of people of my generation and before did not have the money to save up like everyone can do now. We had families to raise on piddlin' little income and the same bills everyone has today...taxes, insurances, mortgages, car payments, etc. 

There were no IRAs. Sure, there were pensions, but if the company went belly up, so did the pension. All we had were savings accounts. There were a lot of other reasons we could not save a lot of money, but now he thinks we shouldn't be allowed to get MediCare and SS even though we paid into it for over 40-45 years?

This is where our country is headed? Where is the respect for hard workers? Just because we were told we could rely on SS by the government growing up, now what? That nitwit!

He's going to get a letter from me, that's for sure.

Interestingly, not only did this guy have an affair, but he had an affair with an employee of his.  During the time of the affair her salary doubled, and her 19-year-old son also managed to get on the payroll.  When the affair ended, her salary went back to the normal rate.  That little increase was paid for by you and me via tax dollars.

So, how do you guys feel about paying for his affair?  Isn't there a word for it when sexual favors are bought?  LOL. 

It has now been reported that he's coming clean about the affair because the girl he was having an affair with and her husband (also an employee) threatened blackmail.  But that was yesterday.  Now there is a new little twist.  See link.

    Friday 26 August 2005

Had he been a Democrat, he'd probably be hiring a criminal attorney.

    On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion Pat Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

    More specifically, Robertson said, You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop.

    We have the ability to take him out, Robertson continued, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

    Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

    By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down: I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,' Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping.

    No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.

    From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?

    For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them - and saying, Let's prosecute.

    The Broad Federal Threat Attempt Prohibition Vis-à-Vis Foreign Leaders

    Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: Whoever willfully - (1) ... threatens ... a foreign official ..., [or] (2) attempts to... threaten ... a foreign official ... shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

    The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson attempted to threaten President Chavez.

    Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?

    It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.

    And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:

Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.

    Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.

    The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison for Threats to Kidnap or Injure

    It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphases added.)

    The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.

    But did Robertson's communication contain a threat to kidnap or injure Chavez?

    First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to take him out, especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.

    Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to kidnap is expressly covered.

    As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.

    Does Robertson's Threat Count as a True Threat? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does

    If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue - based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law - he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?

    Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a true threat. Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.

    Here is how the Fourth Circuit - as it explained in the Draby case - views threats under this statute: Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication.

    This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not mean to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not feel threatened, that is not the end of the story.

    In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was. Then the defendant added that, he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up. This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.

    In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out; that once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach; and, that unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good.

    Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the true threat evidence sufficient to do so.

    For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?

    If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide. Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his apology is anything but a retraction.

    Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?

The Clintonites are now saying that John Edwards nomination is not that important.  (what???)

If that is true then why did she campaign so hard to try to get him to endorse her?  Why did she immediately after he dropped out of the race change her tone and try to mimick him.  You know for a fact if he endorsed her she would be making this out to be the greatest victory in America.

The fact is this IS an important endorsement.  As important as AL Gore's will be and as important as Bush's endorsement to the republicans.

She's just upset that it took away the limelight of her win in W.Virginia, which I believe was not as big as a win in Iowa, Washington State, Maine and other bigger states.  Now they said that because Obama didn't win WV there is no way he'll win the election in November?....yeah right.  Funny how they are completely missing all his big wins.  Of course they are trying to spin it as if all of his wins are not important...only the ones she won.  Brother give me a break!

The sooner she is out of the race the more I can breath a sigh of relief!

So, was McCain sleeping with her, hoping to sleep with her, or being subconsciously manipulated by a cute young woman? It doesn't really matter. He was being led by his groin into ethical violations. Let's face it, he was 64 at the time and is 72 now. Whether he is still cheating or not, he seems to be led by his dick; witness the videos of McCain checking out Sarah Palin's butt during the speech where he introduced her.

not Bill Clinton.  Our economy almost crashed last week and it may still.  Things have not been this bad since the depression.  Anyone who is planning on voting for John McCain should understand how deregulation (which he has supported throughout his politcal career) played a role in what happened last week.  They also should understand what his involvement in the Keating Five scandal was and how that relates.