Roberts Subverted Reagan (Backstabbing Establishment Republican No Friend Of Conservatives Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 08/17/05 | Joseph Farah

[Corin Stormhands]

Aw geez, not this Farah again...

[NeoCaveman]

This is of course a disgrace, but, it's what we've got on our plate. So, since they've come up with a term of derision ("neo-cons"), I figure turnabout is fair play, so, I call THEM "neo-libs".

I prefer to call them neocoms.

[absolootezer0]

so one day we hear how this guy is way right, then way left, and no one really knows about this guy. what are the chances he's merely a devil's advocate willing to look at all sides of things, and make everyone elselook at all sides, before making a decision?

[libstripper]

Equally important, an article was posted yesterday which described a memo he wrote expressing his own opinion that the "comprable worth" EEO theory was dead wrong and could only be implemented through soviet style central planning. That shows real conservative thinking and is important because it's one of Roberts' few writing that shows his own opinion, rather than being a brief or memo written in the course of representing a client.

[msnimje]

Fantastic Rebuttal.
Why are articles by Joseph Farah even allowed to be posted on Free Republic?
He is a lunatic.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Yes, correct, however, the left has succeeded in marginalizing anyone who accurately characterizes them. If you point out that the left ("Liberals", modern Democrats, etc.) are socialists, marxists, or (heaven forbid!) communists, you will be dismissed as a kook."

Yes, but then you are letting THEM get away with "defining the language of discourse". Me, I'm gonna "call a spade a spade", and not an "entrenching tool".

[Rockingham]

So I hope, so I hope.

[Always Right]

regardless of what you think of WND, the concerns re Roberts are legit.

There might be some legitimate concerns, but there is a lot of inuedo and situations that were blown way way out of proportion, and Farah fails to take into account the numerous notes of Roberts which paint a totally different picture. Farah also provides zero support for his headline. There is nothing in Roberts writings that indicate he was anything but 100% supportive of Reagan.

[Always Right]

If the book was criticizing the DOJ, then Roberts's statement was true at time, and "no friend of ours" meant "no friend of the DOJ". Farah's assuming that "ours" was a reference to the entire Reagan administration or somesuch thing. It'd help to see Roberts's comments in context and to know what the controversy surrounding the book was about.

I don't think there is any doubt Farah took that quote out of context. I think your assessment that Roberts was probably defending the DOJ is likely correct context.

[libstripper]

Here's another source of hope, an article in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601919_2.html
It looks like the libs are really concerned with what is in some of Roberts' writings. That gives me some hope that my earlier strong pessimism about Roberts was mistaken. I also hope the libs make a full court press to Bork him and he just barely survives. That experience might make him a stronger originalist than he would otherwise be; it certainly worked with Clarence Thomas.

[dighton]

Joseph Farah wrote an article stating adulterers should be murdered.

Bad stuff, even for Farah.

Free Clara Harris!

[Always Right]

Why are articles by Joseph Farah even allowed to be posted on Free Republic? He is a lunatic.

Farah is well known and gets lots of hits, so it is good to watch what he does. However, he subscribes to some whacky theories, tends to report stuff based on the flimsiest of data and does not always do always do a good job of fact checking. Always take Farah with a huge grain of salt.

[denydenydeny]

It's Joe Farah, which is to say, a mentally ill person.

[msnimje]

Always take Farah with a huge grain of salt.

I'll keep ignoring him a questioning the sanity of people who believe what he writes.

[sasafras]

"Don't believe anything you read by Joseph Farah
Worldnetdaily.com is a kook site.
They hate President Bush and the GOP and want to destroy them."

Quit acting like a Bushbot - Bush is sinking his own presidency - He has taken away our rights, tripled spending, speaks about homeland security while letting illegals and terrorists to enter the homeland without resistance, he is playing a political war instead of winning this war, and is now putting up liberal judges for us to screwed for the next 30 years. All in all the skull and bones and his dad have taught him well and his liberal Massachusetts roots are showing all to well.

[Rockingham]

If fully on the original intent side, Roberts would be not just a vote, but also a powerful mind and an engaging personality. Roberts would make for an awesome 3 votes that all punch above their weight as jurists.

[general_re]

However, he subscribes to some whacky theories, tends to report stuff based on the flimsiest of data and does not always do always do a good job of fact checking.

IOW, your standard-issue WND "reporter".

[Howlin]

Ah, other sources are covering that story, so that doesn't apply.

[Howlin]

You really think the same Bush who renominated staunch conservatives to fill a bullpen of Supreme Court nominees is itching to sell us out?

Yes, they do.

[Howlin]

Is that a macro? I've sure seen it often enough on this site.