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 ...
But if he were to prove beyond a doubt that he would be the best and greatest Chief Justice ever, the Democrats would certainly bork him with a borking so severe the word "borking" would have to be replaced by "robertsing"!
Translated: "We here at the New York Times would like to know what "Fidelity to the Constitution" has to do with our campaign to significantly reduce the population of this Imperialist country by killing a large portion of future generations of Americans and promoting Homosexuality. "
In the book Parkinson's Law, the observation is made that the Man Who Is Always Wrong is almost as valuable to have around as the Man Who Is Always Right. ;-)
They just don't believe it, because they wouldn't follow that rule.
It's like when the left got mad at Bush in his first term, because he had the audacity to do what he said he would do.
In order to please its remaining subscribers and advertisers in Gotham-by-the-Sea, the NYT writer had to carefully craft this piece. It must have taken all his/her talents to manufacture a hit piece on Judge Roberts when all evidence points to him as highly qualified.
Most important, millions of American viewers saw the jurist's qualifications and integrity with their own eyes. They also saw how he shone when questioned by the Four Horsemen of Intellectualism, Biden, Kennedy, Schmucker and Turban.
So, I have to hand it to this writer. He had to effectively "trump da oil", Brooklynese for "fool the eye". And he did it, at least in his own mind.
It must suck to be an editorial writer for the Slimes. In a metaphor of the biblical loaves and the fishes occurence, the editors have to feed their alleged liberal multitudes by manufacturing whole cloth out of nothing and do it in 500 words or so.
One has to grudgingly admire their Potemkin-like efforts. I see a Pulitzer for the Times editorial staff in the near future.
Leni
Goes to show you what the NY Times is all about. Anyone that pays for this rag should have his head examined. My suggestion to Bush, after Roberts gets confirmed (and he will) he should nominate Janice Rogers Brown,if she doesn't get approved come back with Michael Lustig, and if he doesn't get approved, nominate Emilo Garza. The time for a showdown is now!
Pay ME $49 to read the NY Times? Is that $49 daily or just for Sunday? Gee, I missed that offer! Maybe I should open all the junk mail that they send me instead of immediately trashing it?
But no, I'm sorry, my minimum consultation fee is higher than that, and I'm fairly certain they wouldn't take my advise.
I sure hope they enjoy reading it themselves!
The New York Nazi Times is owned by the Sulzberger family that covered up the Holocaust. Yemach Shmo
From the article:
But the unknowns about Mr. Roberts's views remainMinutegal said it best above. This was a damned hard editorial to write.troublingscary, especially since he is being nominated not merely to the Supreme Court, but to be chief justice. That position is too important to entrust to anenigmaconservative, which is what Mr. Roberts remains.
Can't endorse him because he's not Al Sharpton I guess. Anyone else nominated by a Republican would be beyond the fold.
The New York Times would oppose anyone who Bush nominated.
When Hillary appoints her liberal justices, I hope that the conservatives will use this same tactic against them--except more successfully.
The New York Times and The Washington Post seem to be playing good cop, bad cop to me.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
bkmking your post
Hitlary! will never get the chance to nominate anyone to the SCOTUS since she will never be President. I'd put money on it.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
"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?"
Fire someone at the Post as a warning?
"No one listens to that idiotic editorial board anymore." Hell, that whole paper is nothing but one big editorial...
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.