Posted on 07/21/2005 10:30:51 AM PDT by BaghdadBarney
They are a minority, a tiny one in fact, however in their own delusional minds they think they represent a vast majority of conservatives.
If Roberts is good enough for Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, then he's good enough for me. Those two have a great understanding of the issue, and some personal experience with the candidate himself.
Agreed.
IMO, if they really wish to know who Robert's is, and I have hesitated to state this because I know their agenda, Roberts is G.W.B. had he chosen a career in law rather than drifted a few years then chosen the life of a politician where sometimes concessions are made in interest of a larger goal.
This statement of course will send them if they latch onto it into hysteria bringing up CFR. Except G.W.B. is a politician, he calculated the Court would overturn, it was a mistake but not an example of G.W.'s thought on the matter absent political calculations.
Robert's is not Rehnquist. He is not Thomas. He is not O'Connor. He is not Stevens. He is not Souter. He is not Scalia. He is representative of G.W.B's view of the Court in the American process. Those that hate G.W. will be furious. Those that have trust in the President's vision of the Court comforted.
Nor is he his father. G.W.B. is not the sort to leave this to chance. He is 100% certain in his judgement of this man or he would not have nominated him.
Great post.
Roe could be overturned instantly by simply recognizing that Roe erred in calling the fetus a 'potential life' instead of what it was: human life.
There are other ways to overturn Roe. Maybe 50 ways to do so. Incremental chipping away is not the way to go with Roe.
It is scary indeed that we aren't even sure that Roberts would overturn the worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy v Ferguson. But not as scary as the fact that - EVEN IF HE JOINED SCALIA, THOMAS AND REHNQUIST - there is a court majority left to uphold it.
"Roberts is a Souter. Who else would a liberal Republican like Bush nominate? George H. W. Bush set the precedent. Bush isn't pro-life anyway, never has been. He has always supported the "but" position, as in against abortion except in the case of rape, incest, or life of mother. He also allowed federal funding on destroyed stem cell lines."
Okay ... This gets my vote for dumbest post of the day.
For the record, Thomas was *NOT* a sure thing.
He was a protoge of Senator Danforth, a nice man and one of the more 'wobbly' Senators out there.
We had no reason to expect Thomas to be as good as he is, and no reason to expect Kennedy to be as bad as he is ... maybe its the confrimation process that did it. Maybe Thomas' independent streak helps him stay away from the DC Kool-Aid.
Frankly, Roberts is a bit more of a sure thing, because so many other conservatives know him personally.
An exhibit at Madam Tusauds?
A Stepford Judge?
A Pod Person from the planet Judas?
Yeah, gave us that other well-known left-winger Thomas too!
He looks like Lee Atwater.
Maria Shriver and her Mother are involved with FFL (especially Eunice Shriver), but it doesn't mean, they or their husbands are conservative.
*GASP*
The same Senator Danforth critical of the religious right and Bush and procedures of the Bush administration in the WOT was Thomas' mentor? Clearly he's overdue to "grow" as a Justice any day now.
I'm just no impressed by the weak arguments the detractor's have raised thus far.
What does conservative contrarian Howard Phillips say about Judge Roberts? Phillips was a rare bird: he detected the liberalism of both Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter when hardly anyone else wanted to think that these two Republican appointees could be liberal.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS likes to bind itself to precedent, no matter how flawed those precedents might be. Which means they will eviscerate Roe without ever actually overturning it, IMO.
You're right. I hate that. For some folks, no matter who Bush nominates will be the wrong choice. Roberts, so far, sounds okay to me. We'll have to wait and see but I'm not going to bash the guy.
Jay Sekulow likes him, too.
I don't know. Why did the rabid left wing groups oppose Souter? Because he was nominated by a Republican. It's the only reason they recognize.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.