Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
I, too, am worried about the blank slate.
His wife is telling --- active in prolife.
He also was known and liked, personally, to several of the NRO people. This is very reassuring.
An actual catholic, not a CINO, apparently --- also good for these purposes. (Adopted two kids; probably could have had kids via IVF.)
Holy Crow! She DOES have an Adam's Apple!
(actually, I think it's just a tracheal ring. Damn girl, you gotta eat if we can see your tracheal rings!)
Lawyers take all sorts of positions they may not agree with; means little.
Souter wasn't married to a pro-life advocate.
Life and certainty dont mix
Ann always has something interesting to say.
I thought that there were some posts yesterday saying that Ann Coulter was behind him.
Ditto to Ann - the media and hollywood did everything in their powers to get Kerry elected and failed - why do we continue to kiss the libs ass???? Abortion of live babies is not mainstream, racism in hiring and education is not mainstream, homosexual marriage is not mainstream - Bush should have picked someone who is on the record for strict constitutional interpretation and individual rights. I think conservatives probably got screwed again - time will tell.
I will wait and see before I condemn, but I've seen more than one 'R' nomination go over to the dark side. Funny how the RAT nominations to the SCOTUS seem to keep advancing their agenda...
Amen! But remember, Catholics Need not Apply to the Supreme Court as per the DNC.
Ann has a point and I trust both Ann and President Bush. I think however that Bush has a strategy behind all of this. Putting Roberts on the bench should please most conservative for now but we are still waiting to see what is in the cards for Rehnquist. If we push someone too conservative right now it will just be a big argument by both sides. Putting someone to the slight right on the bench can possibly allow us to push someone more conservative when Rehnquist gives up the bench. I don't think that will be long. We shall see. Bush knows what he is doing. I trust this move. I trust Roberts will serve the bench well.
Okay....did he or didn't he argue pro-bono against welfare time limits?
I love reading Ann's articles, but let's face it. Ann would complain the appointment of Jerry Falwell as being to liberal.
Um... I seem to remember one such stealth nominee, named Clarence Thomas. Roberts' record is much less stealthy than Thomas'. What she is really insisting is that we can't tell Roberts' opinions from GHW Bush's. But he went out of his way to argue against Stare Decisis, exceeding even what his boss, Ken Starr, argued.
I have to agree with AC.
Roberts has only served two years on the bench.
There were better jurists with a lot more experience and a conservative track record on the bench than Roberts that W could have chosen.
All we can do is hope & pray for is that Roberts turns out to be a Scalia and not another Souter!
Maybe Ann is just trying to make his confirmation easier by tricking the rats with this article.
Ann, sorry babe...like I told you last night when we were talking...I think you're wrong on this one.
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.