The ex-boyfriend of Ann is certainly male model material.
Peter Lawford
Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
The ex-boyfriend of Ann is certainly male model material.
Peter Lawford
I beginning to think that Ann put this out there on purpose to give liberals some hope that maybe this guy is a Souter to soften the opposition. Ann is a smart person. Conservatives are happy with the choice, it is the Dems looking for reasons to support or oppose the guy.
As far as this column, Ann is flat-out wrong, and I don't understand why she has published something that will be fodder for the left. Since the nomination is made, it does no good to wring one's hands in public, if she thinks this is a bad choice. What does she want...the President to withdraw this name?
President Bush and his father have spoken before about how Souter was a bad mistake. President Bush campaigned on having someone on the bench who interprets the law rather than making it.
The idea that this man is like Souter is laughable. I am as puzzled and irritated by this column as I was by Peggy Noonan's over the top criticism of the President's Inaugural Address, which also made no sense.
At any rate, she is wrong, and this column's tone is strident and makes me think less of her.
Why????? Because you said? Show me any piece of evidence except that which is taken from a legal brief showing Roberts' view on Roe v. Wade, the Second Amendment, or the COmmerce clause.
However, the social conservatives did not work this hard for this long for a well-qualified, smart jurist who thinks and reasons his way into voting to uphold Roe.
Grrr... CBB: you beat me by 0:07 in saying nearly the same thing!
Glad to hear you're doing interviews. "break a leg"!
Where does he stand on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment?
I only scanned most of the comments but I saw a lot of personal attacks, which when you consider she is/was practically this site's mascot is pretty bad.
She'll be banned in a week.
I just don't have enough information about Roberts to know if he's a good choice...and that's the problem.
I truly hope my concerns are alleviated. I hope that for once a "stealth" nominee will hurt the left.
But one question I do have: Even if Roberts turns out to be generally conservative in the mold of Rehnquist, why not go for the very best...a solid conservative in the mold of Clarence Thomas?
I realize that it probably has to do with strategy, but I believe we would win with the best possible choice...so why not take it all?
Now, if Roberts turns out to be like Rehnquist, and then Bush makes the next SCOTUS choice (after Roberts) even more conservative, then the strategy would seem have merit. This has yet to be seen.
I have a wide range of emotions over this pick. on the one hand I am relieved that it's not Gonzales, on the other hand I am concerned since I don't know where this guy Roberts is coming .
For now I am reserved about this choice until I have further info.
truthfully....I'm not too sure.
AC can look a little bizarre in some of her pictures
During Mr. Roberts’ oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice asked, “Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?” He responded, “No, your honor, the issue doesn’t even come up.” To this, the Justice said, “Well that hasn’t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.”
The original article I saw made no mention of Kenneth Starr, or the fact that the Justice was not referring to Mr. Roberts, and I had not, at that time, known that Mr. Roberts was not acting as the solicitor general; I was misled by the context, and recalled it as simply having referred to Mr. Roberts.
However, it is still true that on several occasions, he argued for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, when the court could have upheld a law restricting abortion without overturning Roe, most notably Rust v. Sullivan: “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should beoverruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right toan abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”
Their are no "sure things" especially when discussing judges. What I have seen in his previous arguments and rulings is a man who interprets the law in a narrow and uncompromising fashion. From every indication Roberts does not legislate from the bench and personally abhors those who do.He appears to be a classic jurist in the mold of William Rehnquist.He has a tremendous amount of support from rock sold conservatives like Starr, Hewitt, Meese, Levin,Malkin, the Christian right etc etc. Are all these people wrong and Ann is the only one who sees the truth?
Although I disagree with AC on Roberts, I don't think the Left can use this as fodder. AC's argument is that he is not conservative enough, the Left is not going to use that argument.
I agree with you that it is difficult to fathom what AC would like to accomplish with this hastily published screed. I think she wants to get on all the talk shows and radio shows in the next two days and this is a way to make sure that happens.
The French Fry ruling seemed to indicate that Roberts follows the law even if the PR might make him look bad.
Rehnquist isn't a solid conservative?
Roberts is conservative. Period.
He is more like Rehnquist, but he is conservative.
Aye, that is the question. I've been looking, but have as yet found nothing.
More likely she thought one of her friends did.
Relax...Roberts is an excellent choice...he'll make us proud...you'll see he'll not be an activist jurist. We'll find him to be a constitutionalist not a constructionist as Gonzales is.
OBTW, if Mark Levin has given him his seal of approval...that tells the whole story.... ;o)
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.