The Roberts nomination is not about Roe, it's about Gitmo.

[funflower]

Bush and most of the RWers in DC don't give a damn one way or the other about abortion, except as it helps them raise money and get votes. Bush wants Roberts on SCOTUS because he'll greenlight the "military commissions" at Guantanamo and whatever else * wants to do.

[RoyGBiv]

1. It's about a lot of things ...

I agree to an extent that Roe is a cover of sorts for what it's all about, something to get both supporters and opponents all riled up and ready to rumble. But, I don't think GITMO is the answer either. Despite what those of us paying attention may think of things, and despite the varied and not entirely successful attempts to expose and end what's happening there, Shrub is not in real danger -- yet -- because of it.

What I think the Roberts nomination is really about involves what almost everything ShrubCo has done is really about, to wit, money.

I've felt this since before Roberts was nominated. I was focused less on the individual that would be nominated than the various thinking the candidates for the nomination had on such things as banking and other forms of economic regulation, in particular the elements of those regulations that were put in place as a stop-gap to prevent the circumstances that led to the Great Depression. IOW, I think what it is about is dismantling the FDR system, not just the social programs, although that's a part of it, but the entire system, all the way down to every safety net and regulatory agency put in place during his administration and afterward.

Paradoxically, the main reason I think this is that almost no one is talking about these things even being a factor. But, granting that full opinions on these issues are hard to find from Roberts, what little we do know points to an old-school, so-called strict constructionist ideology that deems such regulatory agencies as unconstitutional.

The other day, however, I read the following article from Molly Ivins. She summarizes it all very well and far more poetically than I can.

Forget what the Supreme Court thinks about teaching creationism in the schools: Think about what it will contribute to the spiraling disasters of globalization by dismantling the entire economic regulatory system built up over the past 100 years.

http://alternet.org/columnists/story/23670/

[unschooler]

3. I agree it's about economics and regulation but also about

preventing limits on the power of the executive branch. Scary.

[mirandapriestly]

2. Well, his wife is targeting Iraq for her global satellite

business. So, OF COURSE he is going to be "pro war profiteering", plus he has numerous investments in her company. yeccch, there is no end to it.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/072105Burns/072105burns.html