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.
Yes. I take the USSC overturning the will of Colorado voters very seriously. And Roberts spent more then three hours on this case.
>>>>Go talk to Hugh Hewitt ...
No thanks. HH is a RINO. Nuff said.
>>>>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.
Virulence? Obviously you've come to a conclusion that is not true. Read all my postings in total and see everything I've written. Not just what you want to see. I'm not fighting Roberts nomination. I oppose his position on Romer v Evans and I disagreed with some of his remarks today before the Senate committee. I have my doubts that Roberts is a conservative-originalist/constitutionalist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas or CJ Rehnquist.