The First Salvo Has Been Fired
While the majority of the Democrats sounded encouraging, and rather muted, over the announcement of Roberts as the nominee to replace outgoing Justice O’Connor there was still a share of idiots that just couldn’t get over this. Below are some of the "greatest hits" from those on the extreme Left. Needless to say, these people just don’t get it.
"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade," NARAL Pro-Choice America said.
God forbid their "sacrament" be challenged. Judge Roberts, for the most part has been accepted by both sides of the aisle. Sen. Lieberman stated today that Roberts was "one of three" people on his own list. What is even more telling is the Seditious Seven that orchestrated the utterly retarded deal just a couple months ago are behind Roberts. Memo to Democrats: I dare you to mount a filibuster. Your seven GOP cronies won’t be there to back you up.
"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," Sen. Harry Reid said. "The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."
OK. I understand that this man has to go back through the confirmation process, but there isn’t one damn thing that the Senate doesn’t already know about him. We know a lot about him. You know why? Because he went through the process two years ago when appointed to the DC Court of Appeals. The FBI isn’t going to find anything new about this man; he’s been through five complete—and quite invasive—background checks.
Several hundred women marched Wednesday morning in front of the Supreme Court, which faces the east front of the U.S. Capitol, carrying signs that said, "Save Roe!" and "Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide!" Others headed to a Senate office building where Roberts was to meet with top Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
"We really need to let American women know how close we could be to losing our right to choose," said Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation.
For those in favor of abortion, I don’t condemn you. But for these nuts that still cling to the lie that abortion is Constitutional have little in the lines of brains, and what they do possess barely powers their ability to breathe. Abortion—Roe v. Wade—was a travesty, and should have never been decided the way it was. But the simple fact is that unless the high court decides to go back over Roe, then nothing will change. I can’t even guarantee it would change then. But Roberts ascent to the court will not, in and of itself, overturn Roe. All these fools do is show the country how stupid they really are.
I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it's even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions. I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions -- sorry, and answers questions openly, honestly and thoroughly.
That’s Sen. Schumer there. I hope he realizes that Roberts isn’t going to be another O’Connor. Even better, I hope Roberts holds to the idea that he’s not going to answer questions regarding potential cases. That was what Schumer was inquiring about to begin with in 2003. He’s not going to answer questions regarding cases of the past, or of those potential ones that may arrive in his hands in the future. Neither would I, were I in his shoes. (And yes, I’m disappointed I didn’t get the call from the president, but there’s always next time.) As a matter of fact, follow the link below and read the article by Jay T. Jorgensen. It is an excellent article recounting Justice Ginsburg, and her stance on the same merits.
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/rbgjudnomconduct.pdf
"John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." — Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way.
I understand that Ralph just pulled Clement’s name and notice of her gender, and replaced it with Roberts’ name in their press release. They are nearly identical, and extremely partisan. The PFAW has a problem with the decisions made by an originalist jurist. That should give anyone pause when they think of supporting this group of idiots. It is pathetic that the have a 12 page rant on why Roberts is bad, and most of it is made up of innuendo, and things that they believe are a part of the Constitution when they’re not.
"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
I had to include "Schmucky" Chucky again because he is dead wrong. If the nominee proves he is worthy through the committee, then it is up to the Senate at that point to give them their vote. If they feel he’s unworthy, you kill him in committee, or on the floor with his final vote. Either way you look at it, both must prove their points. But Roberts has proven this before with his confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals when he was approved 99-1 (Schumer, ironically, was the lone ‘nay’ vote) in 2003.
"Without prejudging the nominee, I do believe Judge Roberts' record raises questions about his commitment to the right to privacy, protection of the environment and other important issues." — Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
I heard this comment in her press conference. This woman really has no brain, does she? Where is the right to privacy, Madam Senator? And what, pray tell, has Judge Roberts done to damage the environment? And for those wondering what her "other issues" are, remember these two words. Roe and fairness. Fairness is about to become the code word for Democrats against Roberts. And thet’s because those fools don’t understand what being a judge is about. It’s not about being fair, per se. Life isn’t fair. There are winners and there are losers, and it falls to Roberts to join the USSC in deciding such a thing.
"The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process." — Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Controversial? This is Sen. Durbin lecturing the nation about controversy when this moron stuck his foot down his throat just a few weeks ago when he implied our troops were like thugs from years past. The confirmation process may end up being less controversial than people expect. Too many people, on both sides of the aisle right now, are in favor of this man.
"This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
There’s that word again, "overturn." Have the brains just stepped out to happy hour here? ONE judge can’t overturn any law. But should the court decide to readdress any previous case, and they reverse the original ruling, so be it. They’re the judges over LAW, not personal preferences. They interpret the Constitution. Should Roe be revisited, and the high court decide that their predecessors made a mistake, then that is what they rule. And frankly, until that day arrives, it’s none of Sen. Leahy’s business—or anyone’s, for that matter—how a judge might rule.
The most disturbing dissent of Judge Roberts’ nomination is from one of our best and brightest. That would be the intelligent Ms. Ann Coulter. (I say "disturbing because I think she is one of the sharpest legal minds in the country, and I usually trust her knowledge of jurisprudence.) Yes, Coulter stands opposed to him. She compares him to Justice Souter. She is one of the best pundits in America, but I personally think she is way off base. I am basing my assertions that Judge Roberts is more right and less center based on a lot of painstaking research. (Many a late night were spent up running research on about fifty judicial nominees. I wittled down 42 to ten in about three weeks. Bush wittled down 11 to one in about the same amount of time.
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66
The simple fact of the matter is that based on what we know, Roberts is a far superior judge to O’Connor, and to satisfy Ann’s worry, he is, by far, a jurisprudential giant compared to Souter. This man is going to be good for the court. And I am positive that his presence on the court will be more and more prevalent in the years to come. I’m happy the president made this choice, and barring some unforeseen, and yet-to-be-discovered, skeleton in his closet, his confirmation should be, for the most part, smooth sailing. Only the Left will be dumb enough to oppose this man.
Publius II
While the majority of the Democrats sounded encouraging, and rather muted, over the announcement of Roberts as the nominee to replace outgoing Justice O’Connor there was still a share of idiots that just couldn’t get over this. Below are some of the "greatest hits" from those on the extreme Left. Needless to say, these people just don’t get it.
"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade," NARAL Pro-Choice America said.
God forbid their "sacrament" be challenged. Judge Roberts, for the most part has been accepted by both sides of the aisle. Sen. Lieberman stated today that Roberts was "one of three" people on his own list. What is even more telling is the Seditious Seven that orchestrated the utterly retarded deal just a couple months ago are behind Roberts. Memo to Democrats: I dare you to mount a filibuster. Your seven GOP cronies won’t be there to back you up.
"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," Sen. Harry Reid said. "The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."
OK. I understand that this man has to go back through the confirmation process, but there isn’t one damn thing that the Senate doesn’t already know about him. We know a lot about him. You know why? Because he went through the process two years ago when appointed to the DC Court of Appeals. The FBI isn’t going to find anything new about this man; he’s been through five complete—and quite invasive—background checks.
Several hundred women marched Wednesday morning in front of the Supreme Court, which faces the east front of the U.S. Capitol, carrying signs that said, "Save Roe!" and "Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide!" Others headed to a Senate office building where Roberts was to meet with top Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont.
"We really need to let American women know how close we could be to losing our right to choose," said Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation.
For those in favor of abortion, I don’t condemn you. But for these nuts that still cling to the lie that abortion is Constitutional have little in the lines of brains, and what they do possess barely powers their ability to breathe. Abortion—Roe v. Wade—was a travesty, and should have never been decided the way it was. But the simple fact is that unless the high court decides to go back over Roe, then nothing will change. I can’t even guarantee it would change then. But Roberts ascent to the court will not, in and of itself, overturn Roe. All these fools do is show the country how stupid they really are.
I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is, particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court will decide to answer questions about his views. Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it's even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions. I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions -- sorry, and answers questions openly, honestly and thoroughly.
That’s Sen. Schumer there. I hope he realizes that Roberts isn’t going to be another O’Connor. Even better, I hope Roberts holds to the idea that he’s not going to answer questions regarding potential cases. That was what Schumer was inquiring about to begin with in 2003. He’s not going to answer questions regarding cases of the past, or of those potential ones that may arrive in his hands in the future. Neither would I, were I in his shoes. (And yes, I’m disappointed I didn’t get the call from the president, but there’s always next time.) As a matter of fact, follow the link below and read the article by Jay T. Jorgensen. It is an excellent article recounting Justice Ginsburg, and her stance on the same merits.
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/rbgjudnomconduct.pdf
"John Roberts' record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues. Replacing O'Connor with someone who is not committed to upholding Americans' rights, liberties and legal protections would be a constitutional catastrophe." — Ralph Neas, president of the liberal People for the American Way.
I understand that Ralph just pulled Clement’s name and notice of her gender, and replaced it with Roberts’ name in their press release. They are nearly identical, and extremely partisan. The PFAW has a problem with the decisions made by an originalist jurist. That should give anyone pause when they think of supporting this group of idiots. It is pathetic that the have a 12 page rant on why Roberts is bad, and most of it is made up of innuendo, and things that they believe are a part of the Constitution when they’re not.
"The burden is on a nominee to the Supreme Court to prove that he is worthy, not on the Senate to prove he is unworthy." — Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
I had to include "Schmucky" Chucky again because he is dead wrong. If the nominee proves he is worthy through the committee, then it is up to the Senate at that point to give them their vote. If they feel he’s unworthy, you kill him in committee, or on the floor with his final vote. Either way you look at it, both must prove their points. But Roberts has proven this before with his confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals when he was approved 99-1 (Schumer, ironically, was the lone ‘nay’ vote) in 2003.
"Without prejudging the nominee, I do believe Judge Roberts' record raises questions about his commitment to the right to privacy, protection of the environment and other important issues." — Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
I heard this comment in her press conference. This woman really has no brain, does she? Where is the right to privacy, Madam Senator? And what, pray tell, has Judge Roberts done to damage the environment? And for those wondering what her "other issues" are, remember these two words. Roe and fairness. Fairness is about to become the code word for Democrats against Roberts. And thet’s because those fools don’t understand what being a judge is about. It’s not about being fair, per se. Life isn’t fair. There are winners and there are losers, and it falls to Roberts to join the USSC in deciding such a thing.
"The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process." — Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Controversial? This is Sen. Durbin lecturing the nation about controversy when this moron stuck his foot down his throat just a few weeks ago when he implied our troops were like thugs from years past. The confirmation process may end up being less controversial than people expect. Too many people, on both sides of the aisle right now, are in favor of this man.
"This is a very, very activist court. I want to know whether he's going to be like that, somebody who would eagerly and willingly overturn settled law." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
There’s that word again, "overturn." Have the brains just stepped out to happy hour here? ONE judge can’t overturn any law. But should the court decide to readdress any previous case, and they reverse the original ruling, so be it. They’re the judges over LAW, not personal preferences. They interpret the Constitution. Should Roe be revisited, and the high court decide that their predecessors made a mistake, then that is what they rule. And frankly, until that day arrives, it’s none of Sen. Leahy’s business—or anyone’s, for that matter—how a judge might rule.
The most disturbing dissent of Judge Roberts’ nomination is from one of our best and brightest. That would be the intelligent Ms. Ann Coulter. (I say "disturbing because I think she is one of the sharpest legal minds in the country, and I usually trust her knowledge of jurisprudence.) Yes, Coulter stands opposed to him. She compares him to Justice Souter. She is one of the best pundits in America, but I personally think she is way off base. I am basing my assertions that Judge Roberts is more right and less center based on a lot of painstaking research. (Many a late night were spent up running research on about fifty judicial nominees. I wittled down 42 to ten in about three weeks. Bush wittled down 11 to one in about the same amount of time.
http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=66
The simple fact of the matter is that based on what we know, Roberts is a far superior judge to O’Connor, and to satisfy Ann’s worry, he is, by far, a jurisprudential giant compared to Souter. This man is going to be good for the court. And I am positive that his presence on the court will be more and more prevalent in the years to come. I’m happy the president made this choice, and barring some unforeseen, and yet-to-be-discovered, skeleton in his closet, his confirmation should be, for the most part, smooth sailing. Only the Left will be dumb enough to oppose this man.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home