Posted on 09/18/2005 7:59:51 AM PDT by nwrep
John Roberts failed to live up to the worst fears of his critics in his confirmation hearings last week. But in many important areas where senators wanted to be reassured that he would be a careful guardian of Americans' rights, he refused to give any solid indication of his legal approach.
We might be reluctant to roll the dice even for a nomination for associate justice, but for a nomination for a chief justice - particularly one who could serve 30 or more years - the stakes are simply too high. Senators should vote against Mr. Roberts not because they know he does not have the qualities to be an excellent chief justice, but because he has not met the very heavy burden of proving that he does.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
New York Times competing editorial (with the Washington Post) in Sunday papers, urges Senators to vote against Roberts. The Post endorsed Roberts.
New York Times competing editorial (with the Washington Post) in Sunday papers, urges Senators to vote against Roberts. The Post endorsed Roberts.
No one listens to that idiotic editorial board anymore. In the District Attorney's race,they endorsed Leslie Crocker Snyder, but DA Morgenthau won.
Too much of a mystery? Hasn't he (Roberts) been through two other confirmation hearings/ordeals? Either these people weren't listening or they just don't want to hear. There is no mystery, just blind opposition.
Hahaha the NY Times and Wash Post are saying the opposite things... with no monolothic MSM opinion to guide them, what will the medulla left do now?
Translation: We can't endorse Roberts or any other Bush nominee who actually believe the United States Constitution is more than a piece of paper.
I read where Mayor Bloomberg has come out in opposition to Judge Roberts. Not that his opinion is worth anything.
Using the that standard the Times should have been against Ginsburg.
You mean the "MSM-a bin Lyin" movement is having internal stresses? I wonder if there are any real journalists anywhere who are aware of this?
I must have missed the section of The Constitution that makes prevailing public opinion a criterion for judicial appointment.The Constitution says that the President gets to choose the Supreme Court judges. The Senate gets to use its "Advise and Consent" prerogative to approve or reject the President's choice. For over 200 years, that has meant that if the choice is of good moral character and sufficient scholarship, he will be confirmed. That lasted until Chuck Schumer and Company decided that specific views on public issues are necessary to ascertain a nominee's worthiness, and that those views must coincide with those of the liberal wing of the democrat party. The NY Times was fine with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's failure to answer basic policy questions. Indeed, virtually every republican in the Senate joined the democrats in confirming her nomination. When dems lose powe, they attempt to change the rules.
Pray for W, NO, MS and Our Freedom Winning Troops
I mean c'mon, anyone could predict what The Slimes's editorials will be before they're printed. The Post has a little more integrity.
The New York Times is a joke. I am so glad I do not live in their world.
Anyone still willing to pay $49 to read the NY Times?
The NYT is celebrating its 150th anniversary today of their "fair and accurate" reporting of the news.
Coincidentally, it is the 150th anniversary of the first use of the Slimes as birdcage liner...
That's easy. They'll swamp with Compost with angry, hysterical letters accusing them of "selling out to the radical right" and threatening to cancel subscriptions. Roberts is a Bush appointee - therefore he must not only be denied a seat on the Supreme Court, he must be completely crushed and destroyed.
The NYT says don't confirm. Phew, now I feel much better about Roberts.
Not the first time the WaPost has shown signs of sanity; e.g., they have been far more favorable about the WOT than the NYT or the rest of the usual suspects.
Call/email/fax your senator and ask theme to confirm Roberts! (And show the Slimes they were wrong!)
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.