Schumer's Law: The excellence of Bush's nominee(s) will be directly proportional to left-wing outrage and bile.
Michelle Malkin has an extensive Roberts roundup here.
MoveOn.org has already spit out the boilerplate (via GOP Bloggers):
In nominating John Roberts, the President has turned to a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court.
Roberts has been associated with some of the most fringe and extreme views of the Republican Party for years. He has supported the "takings" philosophy of the extreme right, which calls for government to compensate polluters. He believes Roe should be "overturned," and won the case that gagged doctors so they could not even discuss abortion with their patients.
He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip mine mountaintops. He tried to stop Congress from strengthening the Voting Rights Act. He worked to keep injured workers from receiving disability. And no wonder, he's regularly been associated with corporate, far right legal groups in America - the Washington Legal Foundation, the Federalist Society, and the so-called National Legal Center for the Public Interest.
President Bush nominated this corporate lawyer to add to the right wing activist block of Scalia and Thomas. Instead of a mainstream jurist with a distinguished career as someone who protects the rights of the American people, Bush chose another right-wing crony.
Yeah, and he also likes to kick puppies and shove little old ladies into the snow. And so it begins...
You know, I'm suspecting that this guy actually has a mind of his own. He's been a Republican foot-soldier, but I'll bet when he is trully faced with implementing the Liberal Constitution of this United States, he is going to find it hard not to vote in accordance with its Liberal intentions.
And another thing. I'm starting to think that I'd like to see Roe overturned, so that all the Republican-religious-single-issue-voters can then ask their Republican politicians about what Public Policy and Law is actually going to prevent a single abortion.
Of course, if the Republicans simply outlawed abortions, they wouldn't really have any statistics regarding what is happening demographically with the occurance. And maybe that's all they want. However, from a Public Policy point of view, it would then become strictly a matter of Law Enforcement, Judicial process, and Corrections.
If one trully wanted to systematically cause a statistical reductio in abortions, it would probably involve Governmentally-sponsored Social Programs, and that is much more in alignment with the political philosophy of the Democratic Party.
Comment by Ghost Dansing — July 20, 2005 @ 12:41 am July 20, 2005
Ghost,
The US Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion, thus leaving the issue to the legislative bodies. Whether one opposes or supports banning abortion, or restricting abortion in some way, is a separate issue.
Comment by The Editors — July 20, 2005 @ 9:31 am July 20, 2005
Why is Roberts so scared of civil rights? Why is the Bush administration blocking the release of his past commentaries regarding voting rights? Roberts has but two years judicial experience: surely there are some more experienced judges in America?
Comment by shannon robertson — July 30, 2005 @ 12:21 pm July 30, 2005
"Why is Roberts so scared of civil rights?"
Why would anyone ask such an inane, baseless question?
The legislative branch does not have a right to privileged executive branch papers. Executive privilege has been claimed by presidents forever.
For the Democrats to block his confirmation for so many years, then complain he only has two years of experience on the bench (he has decades of legal experience) is the height of disengenuousness.
But thanks for visiting and commenting.
Comment by The Editors — July 30, 2005 @ 1:12 pm July 30, 2005