(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
You've heard it before, and you're going to hear it again: Joseph Farah is a buffoon, the Washington Post is only good for fish-wrapping, and you're going to look awfully foolish for doubting Judge Roberts' bona fides.
Ummmm .. it wasn't his case
Look .. I'm all for keeping an open mind about this nomination and hearing the arguments
But could ya give me an argument that has a leg to stand on?
I can't figure out if what he says is his real opinion or something to get his readership up but he's a nut job and doesn't deal in reality.
Go back 5 years ago and read what he said about Bush and 99% turned out to be bunk !
Please send me the winning lotto numbers for this next Saturday, OK?
Another cute reminder that "bigotry" and "tolerance" have very selective meanings for liberals.
Oh brother. If he doesn't agree with Pat Robertson, that's all the more reason to like the guy.
I like Ann Coulter's take on it, and pretty much agree with her conclusions. We don't know John Roberts. He could, theoretically, be a decent candidate. Recent history, however, tells us to be very wary because there has never been a stealth nominee who was good for conservatives.
Personally, the more I hear about Roberts, the less I like him. So NARAL and Planned Parenthood don't like him. What does that prove? Nothing, except that he isn't a filthy communist, which really isn't our number one concern with him.
Kudos to yourself, goldstategop, for not being afraid to ask the hard questions. Yes, Farah may be an alarmist. He tends to get overwrought. Like you, I hope this really bad feeling I have about Roberts is just excessive worrying. Richard Cohen's remarks bother me a lot more than Farah's hand-wringing does, though. The facts speak for themselves.. Roberts voluntarily assisted a notorious, well-heeled leftist organization, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund (hardly a candidate for pro-bono work on the basis of indigence) in overturning a referendum granting special rights for sodomites. He was under no obligation to do so, and he deceived Senators in his resume by omitting mention of his work for them.
I, for one, will not be surpised in the least if Roberts authors the decision that establishes gay marriage as a constitutional right. Even worse, when it's a fait accompli, the self-styled conservatives here will praise it as a great advance in family values: homosexuals will have their promiscuity constrained by "marriage." Far too many "conservatives" have become nothing more than groveling, subservient dhimmis to the leftist Caliphs who apparently own the country.
I hope the left tears Roberts up. I hope they go after his adoption records, his wife, the way she dresses them, maybe accuse him of being a closet queereye too.
And when he is sitting on the Supreme Court, I hope every single day, he remembers what the left put him through.
ping
Who is this Joseph Farah idiot who keeps using the vanguard of the left in the media as his sources?
Indeed.
Joe Farah is reduced to quoting Richard Cohen to promote his so-called conservative argument.
Apparently he is good at writing fiction but can't grasp irony.
Oh no. He helped WIN ... did I mention that he won ... a case. You know, he's probably just a closet gay anyway hiding behind a cloak of conservatism so he doesn't have to face his own problems. And he's Catholic! His second choice was probably to be a priest, and you know about THOSE guys - every last one of them is just a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The President is empowered by the constitution with right to nominate judges to the federal bench. I do not believe in opposing nominees for ideological reasons. The people elect a president knowing full well the power of the office in this regard. These ridiculous attacks by the left trying to affect the right are sad on their part, and sadder on the part of conservatives who buy their nonsense. Apologies to Ann Coulter, but she can't be right all the time.
I'm not sold on Roberts by any means, but come on!
Coulter's last column boiled down to this:
1. Souter made clearly had a strong opposition to abortion.
2. Clarence Thomas clearly had a strong opposition to abortion.
3. Roberts level of opposition to abortion is not clear.
4. Therefore, Roberts is almost certain to be just like Souter.
Huh? OK, fess up: Who damaged the reasoning center of Ann's brain? She's usually pretty good at basic logic.
I would like to feel better about this guy, but the idea that he's Souter just because he's not Janice Rogers Brown is pretty darn silly and the hysteria isn't helping.
Farah is nothing but a barking moonbat.
Joseph Farah and Ann Coulter make valid points. I doubt Roberts will be a Souter, but he will certainly be no better than Rehnquist. I am not sure how I would vote if I were in the Senate, but Bush definitely could have done better.