[msnimje]

The MSM is furious with Judge Roberts for not taking the bite and giving them something to crow about.
They will have plenty when President Bush nominates Karl Rove to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat.

[tflabo]

ABORTION: No child left behind-----alive!

[mother22wife21]

X

[syriacus]

There is a constitutional right to privacy, he said

But he did not say there was a constitutional right to kill defenseless humans.

[kcvl]

Washington Post congressional correspondent Charles Babington attempted to analyze what he saw as a disconnect between members of Congress, who tend to be either very liberal or very conservative, and the general electorate which tends to be more moderate.

Charles Babington, Washington Post's story on the vote in the Senate on Condoleezza Rice's nomination:

Some of the Democrats who opposed Rice were centrists from states in which President Bush won or ran strongly in November, including Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

The Post article, still bylined Charles Babington, has now been completely rewritten. It now covers both the Senate vote on Dr. Rice and the Judiciary Committee vote on Alberto Gonzales. The paragraph referring to Senators Dayton, Harkin et al. voting against Dr. Rice has now been deleted in its entirety. There is still a reference to "centrists," however. The article now says:

As in Tuesday's day-long debate on Rice's nomination, yesterday's criticisms came not only from liberal Democrats but also from more centrist or independent members who have backed the Bush administration on key issues.

For example, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) voted against Gonzales's confirmation even though he had voted in 2001 to confirm Ashcroft, a staunch conservative and an irritant to many liberal groups.

[John from Camden]

First post here.

IMO, you can't take any SCOTUS justice nominee at face value. When the questions are designed to paint the candidate as an ideologue on any issue, a constructionist would be at a disadvantage if he was to stray from that stance by directly answering any question pertaining to the "hot issues."

[BibChr]

I haven't yet seen anyone point out -- though someone must have! -- that Roberts grounded the Constitutional right to privacy in the first, fourth, and one other amendment. The "right" that was cited for Rowe was based on an eisegesis of the fourteenth amendment. Roberts did not cite that amendment. I find that significant.

Dan

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

More ComPost divide-and-conquer BS....

[Ol' Sparky]

Conservatives must hope Roberts was lying to get the job and too ashamed to flatout admit that Roe was one of the worst examples of judicial tyranny imposed by SCOTUS.

[gop_gene]

Very interesting, and typical to say the least, how the author chooses to frame the opposing sides--those for "abortion rights" and those who are "anti-abortion". Why not address the latter as just "pro-life", or doesn't he want to do that because it sounds so much better? Or better yet, why not do the opposite and address pro-lifers as such and the opposing side as "anti-prolife" or "anti-life"?