[Reagan Man]

I'm not the POTUS and I haven't changed the subject either. PresBush picked John Roberts to sit on the USSC. I found a few problems with his testimony today and I have a serious problem with his involvement in Romer v Evans. In America we debate issues and use our free speech right to speak out on whatever sparks our interests. That's what I'm doing.

If I was POTUS, my first choice would have been Michael Luddig over John Roberts.

Stop being so critical of political dissent. The Founding Fathers believed it was a fundamental right to our representative constitutional republic. And so do I.

[defconw]

LOL, OK I give you credit for answering the question. I like Roberts I think he will be fine. I have a BS in Criminal Justice and Minor in Pre-Law, I have not heard anything disturbing. I will have to research Luddig, but I bet if I try hard enough I can find something objectionable about him.

[Solson]

You have a serious problem with a potential USSC nominee taking a VERY small role, approximately 3 hours of work, in Romer v. Evans?

Yet, you seemingly ignore the advice and consultation of those who have worked very closely with Roberts and VOUCH for his traditional stance on the law. Go talk to Hugh Hewitt who worked with Roberts. Go talk to anyone who worked in a legal capacity with Roberts. They all say the same thing - that he is a supporter of the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

The level of virulence of those on the conservative side who are fighting the Roberts nomination makes me wonder what the REAL agenda is - because it certainly isn't trying to clean up the role and direction of the USSC.