Posted on 07/19/2005 10:15:06 PM PDT by ajolympian2004
You can learn as much about someone by what their friends say about them as by what their opponents do. While I never want to pre-judge or misjudge someone based on their associations, knowing who vouches for them and who does not can be very telling. Such is the case with the president's nominee for the Supreme Court, John Roberts.
Tonight, as I watched some of the coverage of the president's nominee to the Supreme Court, I got a pretty good idea about this man. Not because he gave such a riveting speech. Not because I could hear confidence and character in his tone. Not even because of the gratitude and honor he shared with his family (although I really did like that).
Why I believe that this man is the right man for the job is because of what I read and heard from Planned Parenthood, the Human Rights Campaign and NARAL. They hate him.
A representative from Planned Parenthood appeared on Scarborough Country tonight. She was concerned that Judge Roberts, in his role of "crafting" the law, would overturn Roe v. Wade. "Crafting" the law? She could not substantiate any of her allegations, which were disguised as concerns.
I confess I did a little talking back to my television set when she made that claim. My suggestion to Ms. Planned Parenthood: READ THE CONSTITUTION! The role of the Judicial branch of our government is not to write, change or craft any law. The role of the Judiciary is to simply interpret or apply the law to the case before them. There is to be no crafting of any kind in the courts. That's the problem we have now. It's what we call Judicial Activism in a court that ignores the constitution and cites international law as a basis for its decisions. That is crafting, Ms. Planned Parenthood!
The fact that the nominee argued in his role in the Solicitor General's office to overturn Roe v. Wade is absolutely irrelevant. An attorney's role is to argue their case, to convince the court. A judge simply applies the law. If they were so upset about the causes he represented as a lawyer, why was Howard Fineman (Newsweek Editor) the only one I heard say that Roberts actually represented the Playboy Channel in a First Amendment case? Why aren't conservatives in an uproar about that? Answer: because he was serving as a lawyer, not a judge, in that case. I don't mean for this to come off in any way pedantic. I am just amazed at the commentary I heard tonight.
In any case, I then perused NARAL (Pro-Abortion advocates) and the Human Rights Campaign (Gay, Lesbian, Transgender advocates) websites and found more hostility towards Roberts. They are on a mission: do whatever it takes to keep Roberts from being confirmed. The one attack they launch is that this man will overturn Roe v. Wade. They say virtually nothing else. It's an unfounded, fear-based, sensational campaign reflecting the typical irrational, knee-jerk reaction we've seen from extremist groups.
And, honestly, that reaction gives me the idea that I'm really gonna like this guy.
http://justawoman2005.blogspot.com/
I perused DU (I know... it felt like going down into the depths of hell) and they're frothing at the mouth about how America is doomed and how they must stand up now and stop the evil, Bush, Rove, Cheney, corporate, religious agenda. They want a filibuster bad! Oh Boy!!! Can't wait!
Bawhabawhabawhabawhabawhabawha!!!!
BTW - Shouldn't that group call themselves 'Planned Non-Parenthood'?
You're right. They should be called "Planned Non Parenthood" and the others should come with just what they act like they're all about...the right to Destroy Your Young.
Even though I now consider abortion to be a sin, I think I'm for it for liberals. To be brain-washed by parents like that for 18 yeas may be the worst fate possible. /mild sarc
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.