A few of my favs - back in the day...
Posted on 08/08/2005 3:29:26 PM PDT by TBP
Thank's for your feedback.
I am sure that discussions involving Bush, Cheney, and Roberts revealed many things that are not being disclosed to the public.
As an intangible, I saw a man with conviction and integrity when the President introduced him to the nation. As a Christian I am constantly amazed how true it is that the eyes are indeed the window to the soul. I liked what I saw, and I have no reason to oppose him at this point.
That said, I want Luttig to be our next Chief Justice.
Also, the comments made by Roberts on CNN a few years back tells me something about his views. He said that the SC was not very conservative, and he used the upholding of Miranda as an example.
Most conservative legal scholars I know don't really have a problem with Miranda. That includes Scalia, but not Thomas. So I think he could actually be more of a Thomas type justice, and we will all be very pleased in hind sight with the selection.
Bush has been underestimated since day one, and he has come through when it counts.
I bet you'll be saying the same thing if he gets on the court and votes most of the time with Souter. Fact is, he's a pig in a poke - and Republican "pig in the poke" nominees have turned out, without exception to be liberals: Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, Stevens. If Roberts doesn't turn out to be a liberal on the court, he'll be a first "pig in a poke" GOP nominee who doesn't turn out to be a liberal. His helping a radical gay-rights lawsuit hardly inspires optimism that he won't be another Souter.
Is Souter one of our own? He was nominated by a GOP president - Bush Sr. Does that mean we have to treat him with respect, and pretend he's a conservative, because "the right shouldn't attack its own"?
In the LATimes, they quoted the lawyer as saying Roberts played the role of Scalia in a moot court - and that his help was invaluable. He helped her frame her arguments so as to neutralize Scalia. Doesn't make Roberts a hero in my book.
That's the problem. Instead of nominating someone with known conservative credentials, Bush gave us a pig in a poke. In that sense, Roberts is like a string of GOP nominees whose views weren't known when they were nominated: Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. Would you have blasted Farah at the time, for opposing those Republican appointments, too?
A few of my favs - back in the day...
Devil is in the details; proof is in the pudding. I'd rather rely on a careful reading of his decisions than your "Pig in Poke" assertion.
Have you even bothered to read the french fry decision I referenced earlier?
So who ar ethese lovelies?
Linda Blair (Exorcist), Valerie Bertinelli (One Day at a Time) & Phoebe Cates (Fast Times at Ridgemont High).
Four sentences in and already a blatant intentional deception. Not much credibility here I'm afraid.
What a brilliant post that was.
And you have the nerve to call some of us on this board lemmings because we support the President and don't agree with you?
How comical.
Valerie I recognized. The other two I didn't. Good looking all of them.
Yes!
Yes!
Four sentences in and already a blatant intentional deception. Not much credibility here I'm afraid.
No, not a deception at all. he was a partner in his firm; he did not have to participate in teh case. Teh work was pro bono, which means "for the public good," i.e., free.
No deception tehre, as you know.
Roberts spent about 6 hours playing the role of Scalia for his liberal colleagues. Big #*$#ing deal.
Souter was known to be pro-abortion by several groups. In the age of the internet, Souter would have been outed very quickly.
Farah also wrote an article in 2000 that incorrectly said that Gore could as head of the Senate ultimately overturn the election by himself.
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.