Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop
Short of joining with Schumer and opposing Robert's I just don't see what is to be done about this. I would rather have another Souter than join Schumer in anything, but I don't see any real evidence that Robert's is bad for the conservative cause. Pro bono representation does not imply an endorsement.
That's a bunch of baloney - as proven by your having posted this in your title:
Joseph Farah Slams Conservatives For Being Bamboozled By White House Alert
And Joseph Farah is full of crap.
The only interesting thing I find about this "article" is the fact the WND appears to have run out of crackpot conspiracy theories and National Enquirer level investigative reporting (at least for the time being). However, I'm sure I won't need to wait long before I once again will have the "pleasure" of reading "breaking news" from WND about Bigfoot, Martian invaders or something similar.
Reagan put Kennedy on the Court.
I don't believe ANYBODY should be purposefully discriminated against with regard to housing or employment because of their sexual orientation. Period.
So will I ... go with Mark Levin's opinion.
If they struck it down tomorrow, abortion will still be legal in 50 states.
Misery makes some folks mighty happy
Farah = part-time wing-nut
Of course Bush was NEVER "good enough" for Joe or Carl, was he?
And I remember when WND did some honest to goodness great investigative reporting!
And who could ever forget Paul Sperry's wonderful afternoon on the White House lawn? Outstanding!
If so, I am not surprised you would be angry with Farah.
Still, 30-40 years is a long time to pay the price for a mistake. On balance, I still have confidence that Bush made the right choice. But just barely.
If that's the case, then it can't be true without the willing complicity of the Bush administration, which will have the power to make sure Roe is overturned if it wishes it. The Republicans have a solid Senate majority and the Democrats are over the table on the filibuster. If Bush ends up preserving Roe through his appointments to the SC, then it's because he wants to.
A policy of stealth, ambiguity and appeasment through avoiding a confrontation may be a big mistake.
Maybe the administration is being too smart by one half in this nominaiton.
I am not ready to "gather around the flag" for the President only to aid and abet a drastic mistake.
The court system, more than anythng else in this country [imho] is destroying America and its culture. It has to be stopped and SCOTUS nominations are critical in changing the course of the country.
I heard Coulter interviewed on Hannity a couple days ago. She was ranting about how Roberts has no paper trail, and going on and on about Souter's betrayal, suggesting that Roberts could follow suit. When Hannity asked her whether she had read the (apparently lengthy and very specific) answers he had written to the committee's questions, she hadn't. So how can she pass herself off as an expert on Roberts's credentials?
It denied them all legal means to seek any protections under the law. The 14th Ammendment prohibits singling out a specific class of people, without some independent and legitimate legislative end, for such forfeiture of legal protections.
Juding from yours, I'd say that your deductive skills are about comparable to a second grader.
But I understand you people get off trying to insinuate anybody who doesn't agree with your scorched earth policy is pro-life and pro-gays.
I was very clear about what I said; I don't think ANYBODY should be PURPOSEFULLY discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, including you, if you have not managed to offend everyone of the opposite sex with your holier than thou attitude and actually HAVE a sex life.
What ever one thinks of Farah, the above is irrefutable. Roberts was a poor choice, and should withdraw his name from consideration.
Precisely.
But never mind; these tunnel-visioned single issue voters NEED a arrow to strike this man in the heart.
I usually don't pay too much attention to Joseph Farah, and this kind of utter rubbish explains why. Anyone who knows anything about the L.A. Times knows that it operates in lock-step with left-wing special interest groups, and those groups are all opposing Roberts to the maximum extent they can.
Why would the Times want to "bring Democrats on board"? Even if they secretly wanted Roberts to be confirmed, there's no need to persuade Democrats to vote for him. All it will take is a handful of Democrats in the "Gang of 14" to agree not to filibuster him, which is what will likely happen regardless of any story the L.A. Times runs. Democrats know they can't filibuster in this case because that would make it easy for Republicans to claim the Dems had broken the agreement, and hence to exercise the nuclear option.
Even if Roberts was a "stealth candidate" in the mold of Souter and Kennedy, the optimum political strategy for Democrats would still be to castigate him and allow him to be approved by the narrowest margin possible. That would presumably pressure Bush not to appoint a hard-core conservative next time, on the theory that even Roberts barely squeaked through.
So irrespective of whether Roberts is in fact a solid conservative or a stealth liberal, the intent of the L.A. Times story was to drive a wedge into conservative Republican support for Roberts. It's purpose was not to reassure the Left. Farah is trying to bend the facts to fit his emotional preconceptions.
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.