Farah: No on Roberts

WorldNetDaily ^ | August 8, 2005 | Joe Farah

[yooper]

The answer to this whole mess is pretty simple. US Supreme Court Justices affect so much of our daily lives, culture, and law, that they should be directly elected by the people of the United States, and they should stand for re-election on a regular basis. US Senator's used to be appointed by State Government's also, until someone noted that the appointee system only encouraged contempt for the will of the voting public. And therein lies the problem.

US Supreme Court Justices do not have any fear of the loss of their jobs. They are therefore unafraid of passing down idiotic rulings such as the latest private property grab system, a decision which the Founding Fathers would have abhorred. That's how out of touch these justices have become, even some of those justices who we believed to be conservative during the confirmation process.

[TBP]

Now, now. He's been chosen by the Prez, has a wife and two cute kiddies, and is Roman Catholic. How could we ask for more??

How perfectly you've captured the attitude of teh Republibots.

[dawn53]

Yes, it is distressing that Farah would fly off the handle

Distressing perhaps, but not surprising.

Wouldn't be the first time that Farah had flown off the handle.

[crazyhorse691]

A story planted by the LASlimes is not a credible source to get worked up about.

[rdb3]

US Supreme Court Justices do not have any fear of the loss of their jobs. They are therefore unafraid of passing down idiotic rulings such as the latest private property grab system, a decision which the Founding Fathers would have abhorred.

That's one of the largest weaknesses of the Constitution. I'm sure that the framers never thought it would come to this, but, there it is. Getting a lifetime appointment is job security like no other.

[TBP]

Gays are not entitled to the best defense they can acquire?

Of course they are, but this was not a criminal case. This wa a constitutional question, and Roberts -- pro bono -- sided with the liberal judicial activists, taking a case that diminished states rights and increased judicial control over the legislative process. That is just exactly the kind of judicial activism we conservatives deplore.

But it must be OK because Dubya appoointed him, right? They attacked Howard Phillips when he testified against Souter. Now they attack Joe Farah and Ann Coulter for not supporting Roberts. I hope Roberts is the strict constructionist Scalia/Thomas type Justice we've been promised, but there were several candidates we know would be that kind of justice. That they weren't picked and this guy with little record was concerns me. Doesn't it concern you?

[The Red Zone]

I don't think they ever really glued Farah back to it.

[narby]

Well that settles it. I'm 100% for Roberts now.

Farah is an idiot. Anything he's against I'm for.

[glorgau]

I agree with Coulter's assessment. It seems to me that Bush is starting to sound more and more like Orin Hatch - talk one game and then cave.

Arghhh, that sounds bad.

[mastergibs]

I have had real problems with World Net Daily, they come off a little odd. Big issues seem to be gays, abortion, and everything anti Bush. I agree with the Abortion issues, Don't care about the Gay issues and find it very strange on the entire ant Bush thing. I think they belong in a separate category. I would call them conservative sometimes and reactionary most other's. I think they are anti government vs small government. I could be wrong. They often remind me of the folks I listen to on Coast to Coast. I used to belong to JBS and left that group when I could not accept every conclusion they had come to, nice folks. I just disagree on some issues. Rebuttal in order if I'm out of line, don't like to pick on any ally just don't agree with Farah on a whole lot.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

The Founders anticipated that people would serve their constituents for a time and then return home. Sadly, politics became a career in itself and poisoned both the Congress and the Supreme Court.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

Farah is an idiot. Anything he's against I'm for.

I guess he didn't take his happy pills this morning.

[Republican Wildcat]

This makes no more sense than the first time it was posted.

[Truthsearcher]

The "we ought to know" thing doesn't work for me. I don't think we need to know, as long as GWB does.

It comes down to whether you trust GWB enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If you don't trust his judgement, then you'll insist on knowing. If you trust him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, then knowing is not necessary. I give GWB the benefit of the doubt because so far his appointments have with rare exceptions been an record of excellence, from chosing Chaney to be his VP, to Rumsfeld, to Rice, to Bolton, to Goss, to his federal circuit court nominees. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't nominate Roberts hoping Roberts would be the right guy, that he did it confident Roberts is the right guy.

I never had such faith in GB, which is why I wasn't really that surprised that someone he nominated turned out to be a Souter.

[TBP]

Farah is an idiot. Anything he's against I'm for.

So you're for open borders, IRS abuse, and Big Government in general? Farah is against those things.

[narby]

I knew someone would make that kind of reply.

Farah's still an idiot.

[Shawndell Green]

I cannot support any lawyer who works for free to overturn a state constitution to further the homosexual agenda. I hope Roberts gets shot down now.

[Republican Wildcat]

Too bad.

[COEXERJ145]

Farah, please STFU already.

[glaseatr]

Farah, What does Farah Facette have anything to do with this???

Oh not that Farah, are we sure??? seems like the same sounds would be running from her mouth. IMHO