Liberals are "progressive" like cancer.
They want to euthanize you, neuter you, and abort your children. They cling to gay marriage and higher taxes and government-run hospitals (ever been treated in a low-morale field hospital??).
Posted on 07/19/2005 11:34:23 PM PDT by RWR8189
Rarely do I disagree with Fred Barnes, but this is one of those occasions. Judge Roberts is far more Conservative than everyone on the list besides Luttig. Judge Roberts is 50 years old and he will make a huge impact on the Court and we need to rally behind him
Sen. Cornyn's comment deserves to have the iris around it: It's high time recover the meaning of language. "Extremist" fits better for a liberal, because liberals call themselves "progressive" because they are "progressing" from the mainstream.
Kudos, Sen. Cornyn. Freepers, take note.
Justice Roberts seems a fine choice.
I could have lived with Ann Coulter as a choice though.
She has the great legs for the court, that is for sure...
:-)
A msm thumbnail sketch:
John Roberts on the issues
Associated Press
ABORTION: As a lawyer in the administration of President Bush's father, he helped write a Supreme Court brief that said, "We continue to believe that Roe (v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
RELIGION: Roberts unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to rule that public schools could sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. "We do not believe ... that graduation ceremonies pose a risk of coercion," said the brief Roberts helped to write on behalf of the first Bush administration.
ENVIRONMENT: As a judge, he was sympathetic to arguments that wildlife regulations were unconstitutional as applied to a California construction project. The government feared the project would hurt arroyo toads.
CRIMINAL MATTERS: His votes on the bench have been mixed. He ruled in favor of a man who challenged his sentence for fraud, then said police did not violate the constitutional rights of a 12-year-old girl who was arrested, handcuffed and detained for eating a single french fry inside a train station in Washington.
POLICE SEARCHES: Joined an appeals court ruling in 2004 that upheld police trunk searches, even if officers do not say they are looking for evidence of a crime.
MILITARY TRIBUNALS: Roberts was part of a unanimous decision last week that allowed the Pentagon to proceed with plans to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3273644
I think Barnes is also wrong in his description of Souter "drifting left" as well. While some Justices have "grown" over the years, Souter went through a pubescent growth spurt within a year of joining the Supremes.
Great point. The fact is, being conservative puts one much closer to the mainstream than does being liberal.
Liberals are "progressive" like cancer.
They want to euthanize you, neuter you, and abort your children. They cling to gay marriage and higher taxes and government-run hospitals (ever been treated in a low-morale field hospital??).
Fred was in a snit tonight; he must have crossed and uncrossed his arms 100 times.
This was a good pick. Roberts was my "second" choice, but I Bush had a reason for this. He's saving Luttig for the Rehnquist seat, and Edith Jones for Ginsburg's seat.
Ginsburg's seat? Are you kidding? Her leaving while Bush is president is a pipe dream.
One of those two seats will be for a Hispanic. Here's hoping it's Garza and not Gonzalez.
Roberts was a great choice, I think Fred was holding out for Luttig or Brown
She's ill.
I think Barnes' main point is that if the Senate Democrats had objected more strenuously in 2003, they might have grounds to object now. They did not, therefore any objections they may raise now would be pure "politicking" and the height of hypocrisy.
If there's anything to disagree with Barnes' on, perhaps it is his assumption that the Democrats will see the trap and avoid it by pass Roberts through with little or no opposition.
Of course, the Democrats are going to fall for the trap (probably orchestrated by Rove back in 2003 when Roberts was first nominated for a judgeship... ;-). This means that another fraction of right-leaning Democrats are going to see the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership and swing their votes in 2006 to Republicans.
Does anyone know what Sununu and Rudman had to say for themselves? They vouched for the guy, and yet, soon after being seated, Souter sure didn't waste any time doing a sharp left. Did he have them fooled or did they just plain mislead 41 about how he'd be?
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.