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.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Do you remember David Souter's "bona fides"?
__________________________________________________________
As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."
Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."
Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.
As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________
(The above was excerpted from Ann's column.)
Senator Inhofe said exactly the same thing here in Norman last week. Said when everything comes out you have a rock-ribbed conservative in Judge Roberts. Told us not to believe everything we are hearing. I trust Senator Inhofe's judgement as much as anyone's.
Joseph Farah is on target. Remember Free Republic's darling--Ann Coulter--getting ripped to shreds here because she also stated the same views Joseph Farah has?
I agree with Ann Coulter and I agree with Joseph Farah--Judge Roberts will be like President Bush--a moderate who conservatives "think" is conservative.
A moderate President Bush (liberal fiscally, BTW) appointed a moderate John Roberts to SCOTUS. This does not surprise me, and it should not surprise Free Republic members who think independently.
What would have been unusual is if the moderate/liberal President Bush appointed a true conservative. Judges Jones, Brown and Luttig were the true conservatives on the short list. A moderate/liberal Bush appointing a moderate (and possible liberal) Roberts should not shock anybody. Anger us yes, shock us--no.
When it becomes clear that Roberts is who the President presented him to be, the Coulter brigade (I'm usually a fan, but she's too hardheaded to admit she knee jerked on this one) will claim that Bush was wrong to appoint Roberts and that the President got lucky with Roberts emerging as a conservative, strict constructionist juror. Their mantra will be, as it is now, that the President should have appointed someone THEY know, rather than someone HE knows to be right for the job.