If Mr. Roberts gets on the Supreme Court, I don't know whether he will be a good justice or a bad one. But I do know that the FReeper "conservatives" have a love fixation on president Bush. One dare not say anything negative about him or they go into a frenzy like a lover defending his love object.
If attorney Smith is right about the pro bono process at the firm, then we have to ask whether Roberts played a minor or a major role in the case. To me it looks minor.
And in any case, Farah lost me when his website ran a disgracefully unpatriotic column shortly after 9-11. He is a flake with unreliable judgment, to say the least.
The endorsements of Mark Levin and Robert Bork mean a lot to me. For now, I'd say support Roberts strongly. The Rats are showing every sign of fighting him, and that means a lot, too.
And, then, of course, there are those of you all who hate every single thing he does or says.
Not much difference in the two groups, IMO.
Except, of course, that "we" were able to get somebody elected, which seems to have really frosted some of you all's butts.
Mr. Roberts is very, very, smart. He is magna cum laude from Harvard, literally #1 in the class, smart. And if that has gone to his ego, that could be a achilles' heel, as he leans towards decisions that are more marked by cleverness than conservatism. When in the SCOTUS, precedent means squat. They *are* the precedent.
the FReeper "conservatives" have a love fixation on president Bush.
On the contrary. Many FReepers are in lockstep with GW, but many of us disagree with him on some issues. Mine is immigration. he gets a fair amount of bashing on this site.
So, in other words, if something is said that is disagreed with, people shouldn't express said disagreement if it is a post bashing Bush. We must accept it and move on, right?
You can say all you want negative about Bush, just back it up with facts/truth.
Otherwise be prepared to take the heat.
Not that complicated really.