Posted on 08/01/2005 1:05:11 PM PDT by kennedy
Nina's point is?????????????????????
Too bad it doesn't say if fellow panelist Charles Krauthammer basically told her she was full of $**t (as he is able to do so well, and so often).
Well I never met a liberal who really liked our constitution and did not think it was written in chalk. Liberals think the Constution can be changed by a courts ruling.
There is no telling how any judge will end up ruling after he gets that lifetime appointment and has had a few years to decide that he is, in fact, one of the nine Supreme masters of the universe.
If, however, his past rulings are any indication of how he will rule once he is on the Supreme Court, then the best sign that I have seen that he will uphold the Constitution and not decide cases based on what he thinks the law should be is his ruling in Hedgepeth vs. Washington Metro Authority, aka the French Fry Case:
No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A 12-year-old girl was arrested, searched and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted and detained until released to her mother some three hours later all for eating a single French fry in a Metrorail station.
The child was frightened, embarrassed and crying throughout the ordeal. The district court described the policies that led to her arrest as "foolish," and indeed the policies were changed after those responsible endured the sort of publicity reserved for adults who make young girls cry.
The question before us, however, is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. Like the district court, we conclude that they did not, and accordingly we affirm
.
Oh please. Roberts is not conservative enough for me. He's a moderately conservative who might become a more conservative Justice in his senior years. At least, that's my prayer.
At any rate, Roberts is a much better choice than any Kerry appointee, so I'm very glad I voted for President George W. Bush.
In 1991, her ground-breaking report about University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment by Judge Clarence Thomas led the Senate Judiciary Committee to re-open Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearings to consider Hill's charges.
Nina has all the descriptive insight of a 7 year-old.
He's actually more than that, he is a conservative who is way way way smarter than all the idiots who are going to question him.
So if Nina Totenberg and Ann Coulter were to accidently bump into each other would be have a matter/anti-matter event?
"Totenberg, 47, who joined NPR in 1975, after serving as Washington
correspondent for New Times magazine, is widely viewed as the nation's
premier law reporter, ...Not bad for someone who dropped out of Boston
University (to work for a newspaper) and never went to either
journalism or law school."
******
Nina Totenberg
Born: 14-Jan-1944
Birthplace: New York City
Gender: Female
Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Journalist
Level of fame: Somewhat
Executive summary: NPR reporter
Father: Roman Totenberg (violinist)
Mother: Melanie
Sister: Amy
Sister: Jill
Husband: Floyd Haskell (m. 1979, d. 25-Aug-1998, pneumonia)
Husband: H. David Reines
******
Nina Totenberg recieved the leak of illegal information from the staff of Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois concerning information in Clarence Thomas FBI background file of unfounded rumors created by Anita Hill. No Senate staff members were ever disciplined in the breach of Senate Rules, as no investigation was ever known to have been made public by the then Democratic controlled Senate. Totenberg went on the air with the inflamitory rumors and subsequent hearings were held regarding the substance of the rumors, though Totenberg herself was never investigated for recieving and disseminating classified material.
It would be like when Superman enters the Bizarro World.
I don't get the outrage... a Conservative President nomitaing a Conservative Judge. That shouldn't come as a surprise. I am myself not that Conservative, yet I think that Judge Roberts is an excellent nominee.
What I couldn't believe (and still can't) is that "feminists" would be upset by the stuff that Hill testified about. If a woman can't handle that (and I actually don't think most of it was real anyway) she has no business even walking out her front door for crying out loud.
There is something intellectually unhinged about claiming victim at the same time you are saying you are just as strong as men.
My heart went out to Clarence Thomas when he was being grilled. The man did not deserve that garbageon every network as if it was something really, really big and all I could see is my father or husband being humiliated like that in public. I actually cried.
That day, I went from a disenchanted liberal to an angry conservative. The anger has subsided to a less emotional place, but when I think about it, it comes back. (Can you tell?) Just the name Nina Totenberg brings it all flooding back.
Okay. Here's my rough draft:
Dear Editor,Today I heard Nina Totenberg say that John Bolton was very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very conservative.
I think that is really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really bad.
Signed, Laz.
Nina Totenberg
Formerly a print journalist; currently a legal affairs correspondent with National Public Radio; also active in broadcasting
Plagiarism in a piece writting for The National Observer in 1972
Totenberg lost her position as a print journalist with the National Observer after appropriating several paragraphs from an article in The Washington Post.
In relation to that experience, she agrees that she deserved the consequences which followed and feels that young reporters are "entitled to one mistake" so long as they learn a lesson from the unpleasant results.
Tottenberg is creepy and dumb...still grieving over Anita Hill.
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.