Posted on 09/15/2005 4:11:01 AM PDT by nj26
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s testimony about the existence of a right to privacy, the importance of respecting precedent, and the need for the Constitution to adapt to changing conditions has alarmed some rank-and-file conservatives, who are filling up Internet message boards with predictions that Roberts may turn out to be a moderate justice.
Many say they believe that Roberts's answers have shown him to be to the left of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, whom President Bush promised to use as models in selecting new justices. Some compare Roberts to David Souter and Anthony Kennedy -- Republican appointees who proved to be moderates who supported abortion rights.
One writer on the conservative FreeRepublic.org site wrote that yesterday's questioning by Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, had ''exposed Roberts" as a moderate.
''Biden gave Roberts every opportunity to even minimally associate himself with Scalia and Thomas, and he ran away from them like he was running from a burning building -- not a good sign," the post said.
Bush chose Roberts, a highly respected lawyer with a short judicial tenure, over conservative judges with longer track records on issues of importance to conservatives. Still, almost all conservative judicial groups endorsed Roberts, recognizing that his lack of a long judicial record made him less susceptible to liberal attacks.
But the first three days of Roberts's confirmation hearings, during which the nominee has taken pains to portray himself as a cautious moderate, sparked concerns among grass-roots conservatives that Roberts may join a long line of Republican Supreme Court appointees who proved to be more liberal on the bench than the presidents who chose them.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
They're reading us.
The "WarfRatFishWrap" would never ever miss a chance to make a mountain out of a molehill. Especially if it's disturbing to conservatives or "right moderates".
There's no need to spark fireworks in the committee meetings.
Whatever a nominee says in committee can't be held against them once they get to the bench.
"They're reading us."
And yet, their cluelessness continues....
It occured to me on Day 2 that Robert's intellegence, knowledge and principals of fairness TRANSCEND any concerns I have re his political philosophy. I'm voting YES.
"FreeRepublic.org"
No doubt, on purpose.
If they can't get the url right, what else have they gotten wrong?
They've always read us.
The difference is that we're no longer an anonymous 'internet chat room' that they can spin.
Look at it this way: people outraged by the MSM are going to read about us and come here.
Shades of Earl Warren.
As always, and as always, they quote selectively. My sense of the overall reaction to Roberts on this forum was very positive, with a few exceptions born out of an understandable concern over past experiences.
"There's no need to spark fireworks in the committee meetings."
Agreed. Thats what opened Bork up to mischief from the Left.
The hearings are like pre-season football. Concerns about win/loss miss the point.
Wonder if someone is doing a rope-a-dope and if so, who?
You are right. There's no other way for Roberts to answer a question about "right to privacy" he's no dummy.It doesn't matter what is said in committee as we have seen time after time, once they are Justices and not nominees any more they rule anyway they please.
Characterizing FR as "conservative" perhaps is not truly descriptive.
surprise surprise surprise!
Conservatives have a historically poor record of judging character of these nominees. On one hand, they've appointed a bunch of dogs. On the other hand, since they don't have a good record of discerning good candidates, I'm not sure why anyone should put much emphasis on the fact that they are "alarmed."
They didn't pick up Biden's attempt at English?
I'm still trying to figure out what "Discriminigate" means.
My thoughts also. Nuanced propagandists. Aren't they clever?
Roberts could just be playing the hustler and giving them just enough of what they want to hear. Saying and doing are two different things. I'm not too worried though, Bush and his constituents are brilliant tacticians when it comes to playing the Dummies, Roberts could have been picked as a stealth candidate with the knowledge that the head spot would soon open for him. I predict bush will nominate a Judge with a more proven conservative track record for the remaining seat though.
They're selectively reading some of us. Picking what they want to fit their agenda.
Must be a new tactic. /sarcasm
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.