Posted on 07/20/2005 9:11:38 AM PDT by frogjerk
Matt Lauer inteviewed Sen. Kennedy (D-Ma.) on the Today Show his morning. Here are some excerpts:
LAUER: So when you voted against John Roberts in 2003 you said the following, quote, I am concerned about Mr. Roberts' efforts to limit reproductive rights as a government lawyer, his advocacy against affirmative action and federal environmental protection laws, and his efforts to shield the states from individual suits and to limit Congress' ability to pass legislation regulating state conduct in the name of states' rights. Have you changed your opinion in any way on Judge Roberts?
KENNEDY: Well, these are really questions, aren't they? And that's what this whole process is about. We congratulate Judge Roberts with the nomination. And now the president has fulfilled his responsibility; we in the Senate have to fulfill ours. And the real question I think that Americans are thinking about this morning is: Whose side is Judge Roberts really on, on the really important issues of our times?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
How about someone that stands for the Constitution rather than your lacky Democrat party base?
That's what it boils down to for Jabba the Ted ... sides. Never mind what the Constitution says.
Those of you who know the history of Supreme Court appointments...when did it become so political, or was it always that way?
Why does Kennedy call it reproductive rights. Non-reproductive rights would be a more accurate description.
He knows pain in this life, too, hoever. He knows that the legacy of his brothers will always be better than that his. He may think he is a better man than either Jack of Bobbie but he now knows that he'll NEVER be able to prove it!
That's what motivates Fat Teddy. He wants to return to power so he can build a legacy. With a dem in the White House and a majority in the Senate, Teddy could be authoring wonderous things. His legacy could surpass that of his brothers. But, he won't. He'll go down in history as the nasty obstructionist, fat, drunken, anti-American would killed his girl friend and child at Chappaquidic. No wonder the guy drinks!
you got that right.
It's really more of an issue of the rights of a living yet unborn child.
Those rights were completely ignorde in Roe Vs. Wade.
The medical evidence shows that a child is capable of surviving at the age that abortions are legal.
People have been prosecuted and convicted for the murder of unborn children.
Roe vs. Wade is simply not consistent with the constitution or rulings in other cases.
Abortion is murder, and must be treated as such.
"you [Kennedy] said the following, quote: I am concerned about Mr. Roberts' efforts to limit reproductive rights as a government lawyer, his advocacy against affirmative action and federal environmental protection laws, and his efforts to shield the states from individual suits and to limit Congress' ability to pass legislation regulating state conduct in the name of states' rights."
TRANSLATION: I am disturbed that a lawyer might conform his conduct to the rules of ethics by zealously representing his client in accordance with his ethical responsibility to do so. I do not understand such people, and may not be able to consent to a nomination of a person who may actually follow the rules and laws to which they are bound.
Missed show but was he really drunk or just impaired in logic, facts and/or reason?
"Uh, uhh, well, uh, uh, uh these uh are uh really uh questions, aren't uh they? And uh, uhh, uh, that's what uh this whole uh uh uhhh process is uh about."
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.