Ah. So Ann didn't read his responses, but feels herself a qualified judge to label Roberts a "Souter". meanwhile those supporting Roberts are reading everything they can get their hands on, watching C-Span airings of a speech he made (in which he stated the Supreme Court had the RIGHT to overturn precedent or restrict). Now, who is more qualified to assess Roberts? Someone that does countless research on Souter as her last column did. Or someone that does through research on Roberts? She has a Souter fixation.
Reading the WaPo headline I can see they are disapointed the story didn't fracture Roberts support or even collapse it. There is a reason for that. Everything known about Roberts thus far has been extremely positive. We Trust the President. We trust his success at picking placements for the bench. And, of course, the hearings are always time for any questions that may exist. The LA Times WILL NOT be the cause of fracture. Roberts will be assessed separately from the MSM headlines. Judgement will be made separately from their actions.
"
Reading the WaPo headline I can see they are disapointed the story didn't fracture Roberts support or even collapse it. There is a reason for that. Everything known about Roberts thus far has been extremely positive. We Trust the President. We trust his success at picking placements for the bench. And, of course, the hearings are always time for any questions that may exist. The LA Times WILL NOT be the cause of fracture. Roberts will be assessed separately from the MSM headlines. Judgement will be made separately from their actions."
BS
Bush had a chance to appoint a conservative originalist who has proven his mettle by sitting on a court for longer than a year or 2. Instead he picked the blank slate, Roberts.
We've seen Bush expand the role and scope of the federal government even more than Clinton did - at least Clinton faced a hostile Congress in the face of his proposals - Medicare drug "reform" would have been called what it is by the GOP under Clinton - socialized medicine.
We've seen Bush promise to sign AWB, sign CFR, sign CAFTA, and push LOST and the FTAA, want to "reform" the UN instead of abandoning it as the worthless crap is, come out in support of Koffi Annan, push Israel to withdraw from it's own country, refuse to name Islamic terrorism for what it is so much that his very words "religion of peace" are used in derisive mockery every time another terrorist attack occurs, support open borders and de facto amnesty, social security totalization with mexico, I could really go on and on. So could any FReeper who pays attention could too.
Bush didn't turn out as conservative as many of us hope, we laugh when the MSM calls him a "right wing ideologue."
His judicial pick wasn't one of the many fine Conservative judges who have proved their mettle and resolve over years on the bench. Instead, he picked a... trial lawyer. Who claims the paper record of his past work doesn't reflect his views. Blank slate.
Dissapointed again!