No On Roberts (Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert)

World Net Daily.com ^ | 08/08/05 | Joseph Farah

[MonitorMaid]

Those who doubt that Roberts follows a strict view of the Constitution should read MORE of his words

I believe they've already read it but they have their own agenda which most can see right through.

[frankiep]

However, I can't believe that Bush could or would be so "off the mark".

Two words: Bernard Kerik

[Howlin]

You're poor at jokes.

I'm better at jokes than you are at spelling, so get over yourself.

[philman_36]

I was making a joke because NOT EVERY CONSERVATIVE feels that way.
You stated that "NOT EVERY CONSERVATIVE feels that way" so why did you ask me your question?...What I mean is that I don't know any who do -- so what am I missing?
If you know that some don't then you also have to know that some do and I don't understand why you would ask a question of which you already knew the answer to. That applies to your other question as well.
That is why I don't take your "I was joking" comment at face value.

[philman_36]

I'm better at jokes than you are at spelling, so get over yourself.
There is nothing to get over. I know and admit that I make errors.
Do/can you do the same?

[Howlin]

Are you actually ON drugs now?

Because you're making this a lot harder than it was or has to be.

I made a mistake by posting a silly comment to a poster who obviously doesn't have a sense of humor.

No wonder nobody bothers with the WOD threads.

[msnimje]

I think his brain got ahead of his common sense. Even if it was doing something as mundane as mimicking Scalia

Why? What if he actually thought the lawyers could present the best possible case before the Supreme Court and the Justices would decide it correctly? Judge Roberts lamented the fact that the Rehnquist Court is NOT CONSERVATIVE.

[philman_36]

Are you actually ON drugs now?
No 'm not. Are you?
Because you're making this a lot harder than it was or has to be.
Making what harder? Getting you to clarify your position?
I made a mistake by posting a silly comment to a poster who obviously doesn't have a sense of humor.
Then perhaps you shouldn't make silly comments that can be taken as serious ones. And I'm happy to report that I've got a great sense of humor. Tell me something funny and I'll LOL.
No wonder nobody bothers with the WOD threads.
Not true. Lots of folks bother with them, both pro and con. If they didn't then they wouldn't be so notorious. LOL!

[philman_36]

Oops...No I'm not.
Gotta proof better.

[savedbygrace]

Howlin,

During the confirmation hearings, my Senator Coburn will be asking the right questions that will help us determine if Judge Roberts is a strict constructionist or not.

If his answers to Senator Coburn's questioning make it clear he's not a strict contructionist, will you change your opinion? (President Bush promised that if given the opportunity he would name strict constructionists to the USSC.)

[savedbygrace]

FYI, I'm headed out of town early this morning for a few days, so I won't see any replies for awhile.

[Archon of the East]

Those who doubt that Roberts follows a strict view of the Constitution...

Is a strict constructionist enough to restore our republic? It's a question that not many of us ask yet given the enormity of bad decisions and precedent over the last 70 years (OK 200) I think we need to consider it. Now I am not advocating activism but I am suggesting that we need to look into whether a candidate supports not only the structure of the Constitution but also whether they adhere to Natural law principle's it was built on.

I don't know if it's possible. We may be to far gone at this point to ever return to the point where we can continue the ideas of our Founder's, to perfect their concepts of self Government. I just don't think that a mere strict constructionist is enough...IMO

[Smartaleck]

Some would slam Joseph Farah and World Nut Daily for too often bamboozling their readers.

[Smartaleck]

Note too, Walter Smith the former law partner of Roberts and the lead on the firm's pro bono work, heads up the DC activist group Appleseed which is in partnership with the People for the American Way, i.e. he's a Lefty and his contributions to the LA Times story were meant to get the Right exorcised over Roberts.

Seems to me Farah needs to either do more homework or be more honest in his disclosures before offering up an opinion.

[Shazbot29]

FWIU Roberts spent 10 pro-bono hours helping a colleague who was actually working on the case. It was consistent with his pro bono policy at the time and not indicitive of any Left leanings.

The more I hear about Roberts the more I like. Hs conscience as a lawyer is clear: to represent his client zealously, no matter what. As I have heard it said, he is a "lawyer's lawyer."

This LA Times peice is just there to accomplish what this article is doing: upset the Right since we can't nail him on anyhting.

I have also heard that the NYT is going after his family, trying to find some dirt on his 2 adoptions.

The agenda is clear: If Bush picked him and he isn't on the Lefty List, go after him with everything the MSM has in its arsenol.

Sad Farah fell for it.

[Shazbot29]

You need to do some research. Roberts helped someone else and spent 10 whole hours on this case (and those were probably lawyer's hours).

And the case isn't even a gay rights case -- see some of the great analysis on this thread.

Jeeze.

[Smartaleck]

"Here's the new World Net Daily home page:"

ROFLMAO

[Smartaleck]

"And Farrah, being either a fool or overly excited, buys into the bit."

Some might say "useful idiot"?

[Smartaleck]

"I see you're educating the masses...as usual."

I see you're educating the "asses"...as usual.??

[Wonder Warthog]

"Or do you take George W. Bush to be a fool?"

He signed "Campaign Finance Reform" into law, didn't he?? So the answer is yes---at least sometimes.