Posted on 07/20/2005 9:19:50 AM PDT by shield
I agree...that's exactly why I checked Jay out this AM to see if he was supporting Judge Roberts. ;o)
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!
Trust but verify. (Many here will quote President Reagan with this line, but haven't actually taken his wise advice.) Trust but verify.
I'm sure some wiseacre is going to want to pounce on me and say that President Reagan was referring to the Evil Empire, and Jay Seculow isn't the Evil Empire. I say, the principle is sound, no matter who is offering the opinion.
I wish he'd appoint Brown...first Blk Women on the Supreme Court.
You have the right to your opinion. But if you are way to the right of Jay Sekulow, John Roberts, and George W. Bush, please realize that you are in the 10% range--almost beyond political relavance in the true fight for the majority in actual day-to-day politics in this country.
Cept for Coulter who was a real dissapointment today.
Me too! Me too! Someone please ping or mail me if you guys find anything in print. I suspect there is nothing to worry about, but it would be nice to know where he stands.
What if Roberts is another cleaned up hippie?
True.
--almost beyond political relavance in the true fight for the majority in actual day-to-day politics in this country.
Not true. radical conservatives make excellent, impassioned grass roots activists who work VERY hard to get people like Bush elected, which I did (see tame's activism updates on my links page).
Our volunteer efforts should NEVER be underestimated in getting Republicans elected.
Senator Durbin on C-Span 2 - discussing Judge Roberts
That is why I qualified it with people who actually know Roberts. Coulter just trashed him because she has no idea who he is. Coulter was shooting from the hip, and should have done more research or waited to find out more about him.
We are now beginning to get some good endorsements that tend to fill in some of the blanks. But the proof is in the pudding. Let's hear what he says in the confirmation hearings.
Trust but verify.
"We dont know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."
So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.
Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committees talking points on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts arguedfree of chargebefore the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the Districts Public Assistance Act of 1982.
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. Thats just unnatural.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Developing...
Better than a lot of stuffed-suit wind bag, CINOs. Best,
"We dont know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."
So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.
Coulter continues: It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter. I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committees talking points on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts arguedfree of chargebefore the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the Districts Public Assistance Act of 1982.
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. Thats just unnatural.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Developing...
"Just got into FReep mode... is this guy pro RKBA or what? Anybody know yet?"
I'm not sure if the NRA knows yet. All they had on their web site was the following:
Introducing John Roberts
Manuel Miranda, founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, an ad hoc coalition set up to educate leaders of grassroots conservative organizations on judicial issues and coordinate action strategy, discusses the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Read About It: Wall Street Journal
POSTED: 7/20/2005
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=6158
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.