Replies

I think you're overdramatizing the "Black Day at FR" thing. I don't dispute that people may have said nasty things about Coulter--I saw none of that but I didn't read much of the thread, because I thought Coulter was just doing her 100% Pure Hardcore Conservative w/No Fillers" act, which is cute.

But the idea that just because people aren't tossing spears at each other over this nomination it's the beginning of the end is sheer lunacy. When there's no reason to fight, why fight?

We can fight plenty when and if the judge does something deserving of it. The tendency to look for fights where there is no reason for one--oh my, some people like this guy! how shocking!--is a bit childish.

And let's be very honest here: I love Coulter, but to attack others for attacking a woman who routinely picks on people's physical characteristics? THAT, my friend, is the hypocritical treatment. Ann's a big girl; she can take it, or she should be able to, because she dishes it out plenty.

to attack others for attacking a woman who routinely picks on people's physical characteristics? THAT, my friend, is the hypocritical treatment. Ann's a big girl; she can take it, or she should be able to, because she dishes it out plenty.

Amen to that. I didn't see the negative comments about Ann, but my first thought at reading this thread was the same as yours: Well, Ann dishes it out.

That's why I was never a fan (and never will be) of either Ann or Laura Ingraham. I do realize they're just political pundits, so it pays them to poke fun at people on the Left; they get more attention and sell more books that way. And, after all, that's what the Left does to the Right.

Still, they should be able to handle criticism, too.

I love Coulter...Ann's a big girl; she can take it, or she should be able to, because she dishes it out plenty.

Mutually exclusive, don't you think. You call someone you love a hooker, skinny, drunkard, psychologically troubled read the thread, my friend. All this was about was Bush minions, who were going to spin this nomination- and if it mean calling a conservative icon a drunkard and a hooker, made no difference at all.

I hope you don't treat the people you love that way in real life, my friend.

You don't savage a lady you love based on their psychical characteristics. At least, if you're a gentleman/

TAGLINES

Pzifer: “Viagra won’t cause dementia or blindness". (Except if one wears a Black Robe)

Clean your muskets and sharpen your pitchforks and get ready to ride to the sound of the guns.(KELO) :o}-

Dems, hello??? We could get out of Vietnam; we can’t GET OUT of terrorism.

The following should solve many questions conservatives have about the thinking of Judge Roberts. This comes from NRO - Bench memos. Here’s a tough test: Let’s say that you were a police officer and at 1:00 a.m. you spot a car without a functioning light for its license plate. You pull the car over and conduct a records check, which indicates that the car’s temporary license tags had been reported stolen. You also discover that those tags had been altered to match the car. The car’s driver can’t produce the car’s registration or a driver’s license. A check of the vehicle identification number indicates that the car had once been registered in Virginia but is no longer registered there.

Might it be reasonable to think that the car might have been stolen? Not according to the two Democrat appointees in the opinion issued by the D.C. Circuit today in United States v. Jackson. But yes, in Judge Roberts’s view in dissent.

Next question: Might it be reasonable to think that the car’s trunk might contain some evidence—the car’s real tags, items identifying or belonging to the real owner, or tools used in car theft—that the car was stolen? Let’s say, further, that you had run across stolen tags on ten previous occasions and that on six or seven of those occasions the vehicle’s real tags were found in the trunk. Is it reasonable to check the trunk? Again, not according to the two Democrat appointees. But yes, according to Judge Roberts’s dissent.

My favorite part of the majority opinion is the assertion that real tags in a trunk simply can’t be evidence of a crime “because there is nothing illegal about having such tags in the trunk of an unregistered car.” There’s nothing illegal either about having blood all over the floor of a room in your house where a person is thought to have been killed. But that might fairly be considered evidence.

It seems to me that some Democrats were calling for a nominee with common sense—a quality particularly appropriate to Fourth Amendment judgments of reasonableness. I think it’s clear that President Bush has given them one.