|
|
|
| ||
 |
|
|
|
Supreme Court nomineePresident Bush has nominated federal judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts was described by the Associated Press as a "bright judge with strong conservative credentials." What do you think of Bush's choice? Posted at July 19, 2005 05:28 PMComments
A wonderful choice that the Demorats will have a hard time Borking. Posted by: Michael B. Williams at July 19, 2005 05:49 PM Great choice. Roberts has a fine legal mind and will follow the constitution, not be an advocacy-type judge who would change the laws that he doesn't agree with. Posted by: Stan Foreman at July 19, 2005 05:50 PM The President has done an excellent job upholding his campaign promise with this nomination. Thank goodness he, once again, did not cowtow to the vocal minority and went with someone who is consistent with American values. Posted by: Justin Forsberg at July 19, 2005 05:52 PM It's definately not going to be an easy battle for the conservatives. Of course they could have chosen a more moderate nominee but that wouldn't suit Republicans needs for an extreme choice that could overturn their infinate goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade. Plus, it's an excellent opportunity to take the focus away from the fact that their man, Rove, is about to go down. Posted by: Maura Klein at July 19, 2005 05:55 PM A poor choice indeed. Inexperience teamed with an obviously biased track record. This will not create a balanced supreme court, which is very sad. Bush has chosen Roberts for selfish self- serving reasons, not based on the opinion of the majority of the American citizens who he serves. A president is a servant of the people, not the other way around as this president has shown time and time again. Another sad day for America with this, Karl Rove leaking secrets and 25,000 Iraqi citizens dead. Great job Mr Bush. Posted by: A. DeRoux at July 19, 2005 06:10 PM brilliant choice...perhaps with several more like selections...moral life and human values have a chance to succeed Posted by: joe semler at July 19, 2005 06:31 PM I couldnt have said it better DeRoux. Posted by: paul at July 19, 2005 06:39 PM Court candidates generally are a reflection of the president who appoints them. The American people elected President Bush, and he has picked someone who is like himself ideologically. So, to say his pick does not reflect the majority of the citizens is incorrect and wishful thinking. You may chose to bad mouth the President over many things, but he ‘won’ the right to name persons to the Supreme Court of his liking, not the oppositions. Posted by: jeff at July 19, 2005 07:03 PM Keep something in mind liberal Seattle: George Bush was considered to be the best poker player in his Harvard MBA class -- the "bambi in the headlights -- gosh I'm stupid" is just an act. Posted by: Nick at July 19, 2005 07:08 PM sandra day oconner was a fairly good republican judge so appointing anything less would actually push the court to the left. for the media elite to keep pushing this idea that bush must appoint a moderate and push the court to the left is ludricous... shouldn't he be expected to want to push the court just a little in the right direction? Posted by: huey at July 19, 2005 07:17 PM Maybe, or maybe not. Many Court appointees have turned out different than originally thought. Posted by: Jeff at July 19, 2005 07:31 PM "Media elite?" "American values?" Thanks for the laugh! Posted by: Roger at July 19, 2005 07:35 PM Bush's choice sucks. Roberts is a right wing fanatic, just like most of the posters in this stupid forum. Shouldn't all of you republican wingnut pyschos be reading freerepublic.com, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, or The Corner instead of a liberal Seattle newspaper? Posted by: Matt Taylor at July 19, 2005 07:38 PM Sorry. A minor slip in the statistics. The population of Iraq is about 50 Million. Abortion has killed 34+ million between 1973 and 1996. So, it still ok to burn your monitors in protest. Posted by: Jeff at July 19, 2005 07:40 PM The Republicans are fascists. The world would be a much better place if they were out of power. So many dead Americans on Bush's watch. It makes me sad. Posted by: Gay Al at July 19, 2005 07:44 PM Matt, Good name calling. Love the 'go back to your own neighborhood' references. Or, is this just some of your liberal tolerance showing? Posted by: Jeff at July 19, 2005 07:49 PM Brilliant! The "village idiot" checkmates the "progressive" geniuses again. What is this; the 500th time in a row since he came on the national scene? I laughed out loud. This guy is the smartest guy to sit in the oval office in my lifetime. And I thought no one would ever top Bill Clinton! Choke on it, PI editorial staff, it will be fun to watch! (A liberal Seattle news paper Matt? ... "out of the mouths of babes"...) Posted by: Steve at July 19, 2005 07:51 PM I used to be sad that there were so many right wing extremists "out there" until I found out Seattle was the most economically segregated (ie: racist) cities in the U.S.A. It does not suprise me that so many people support this nominee. It does sadden me that there are not more people who would like to see a middle way, instead of extremist ideals, and that our president is one of them. We must make the changes in ourselves that we would seek for others. We need to CARE about ALL people. Posted by: Lisa Anthony at July 19, 2005 07:55 PM Conservatives need to be careful or the editorial staff may just find no reason to have this opinion page. i.e. - liberal opinions are the only one which count in this town/paper. Posted by: eddie at July 19, 2005 07:59 PM Yes! Hurrah for freedom for True American Values. Posted by: Gordon Shepro at July 19, 2005 08:00 PM Typical of Bush ... a narrow minded choice, he's driven by a code of ultra conservative neocon ethics few aspouse and few can afford. Despite the need for a middle ground he pushes forward with his elitist agenda. Enlightenment isn't going to occur on his watch. Posted by: Bill Stankus at July 19, 2005 08:16 PM Sorry, but those of us in the public do not have enough information about this guy to have anything but a foolish opinion. As if the general public knows anything about some federal appeals judge. "Roberts has a fine legal mind and will follow the constitution" Really? You've worked with him? Followed his career closely, have you? Besides, how many judges have changed their stripes once they get that lifetime appointment? Quite a few. This entire board is a joke. But that's to be expected. This whole country is a joke. Posted by: Jorge Vasquez at July 19, 2005 08:21 PM Well all I can say is that Bush could have done worse. Like Adolf Hitler, Stalin or someone like that. I do not understand why a (so called) ex drug addict can even be elected. Why should I understand this? Come back Bill Clinton, we need you. Posted by: Dino at July 19, 2005 08:22 PM I'm going to wager that the posters on this board who deride Bush and his pick have done little to no research on Judge Roberts. This is a man with impeccable credentials, who was UNANIMOUSLY approved by the Senate just two years ago, and a man who is considered by the members of the Supreme Court itself to be among the best lawyers to argue before the Court. Bush promised the American people before the election that he would nominate someone of Roberts' ilk, and he kept his promise. No one should be shocked and disappointed. Justice Roberts will hopefully have a long career on the court interpreting the Constitution and not rewriting it. Posted by: Adam at July 19, 2005 08:55 PM Seems like a good and decent man who represents normal, traditional Americans who love their country. Liberals will naturally hate him no matter what he does or says. Thank God, we have President Bush leading our nation. Posted by: Ian McDermott at July 19, 2005 08:55 PM Good choice! A young man with a solid background and with a healthy respect for the law. Sad to see that Democrats are already throwing stones. Posted by: Kurt at July 19, 2005 09:03 PM Based on impartial, and partial reporting, Judge Roberts sounds intelligent, able to successfully argue both liberal and conservative points before the Supreme Court, and friendly. Beyond that it is difficult to discern too much about his personal beliefs. He did work for a couple of Republican administrations, but then again they were in office for quite a while after he graduated from Harvard. The man has just a year and change on the federal bench, and hardly any major cases have come before his court. Perhaps we can dig our heads out of the sand and actually listen to him, rather than the press or political spin, when he testifies before congress. Or would that be asking too much of both the left and the right. While Bush will serve three more years, this man will likely be serving our country for the next 30 years. We should all get to know him intimately before allowing our Senators to cast judgement because it is his thoughts that will influence all of us through his votes. Posted by: Phil at July 19, 2005 10:05 PM Sounds promissing, but future will tell. Hope he has good family values. Posted by: Russian at July 19, 2005 10:17 PM While I cannot tell what the future holds because of this, whether it be good or bad, I've got to wonder what people posting mean by him representing 'normal' and 'american' values. Does that mean because he's a white conservative man with an abnormally large amount of money, he's representative of, and can make accurate decisions for, the entire population? Posted by: glo at July 19, 2005 10:29 PM With less than 2 years of experience as a judge, Roberts is a suprising choice. Of course, you only needs 3 things to get ahead in this administration... loyalty, loyalty and loyalty. Posted by: Steve at July 19, 2005 10:31 PM His experience is in arguing all those cases before the supreme court and in clerking for Renquist. His character is reflected in his working class roots and the fact that he graduated from Harvard undergradute and law with honors. Posted by: jeff miller, RN at July 19, 2005 11:07 PM His experience is in arguing all those cases before the supreme court and in clerking for Renquist. His character is reflected in his working class roots and the fact that he graduated from Harvard undergradute and law with honors. Posted by: jeff miller, RN at July 19, 2005 11:07 PM 1 for 1, Mr. Bush. Ease the Senate Dems into the process with the unimpeachable Roberts and then hammer them with a Scalia clone when Rehnquist drops out. That's all we elected you for, sir. Thanks for remembering us! Posted by: Bob at July 20, 2005 12:02 AM I AM CONSTANTLY AMAZED that people actually believe G.H.W. & his current president son are good people. There is PROOF that this administration knew about 9/11 before it happened and even helped. There are lawsuits against this administration with steadfast PROOF of their intimate knowledge and help in the MURDER of over 3000 Americans. Marvin Bush (georges' brother) was made head of WTC security only months before out of the blue??? The Saudi Royal family had business interest in the security of WTC??? Seventy-One people have come forward saying they heard bombs going off in the bottom of the buildings??? Are you kidding me?? Why doesn't mainstream media (particularly newspapers) report on these lawsuits??? Why? I wish to know. DO RESEARCH PEOPLE....WAKE UP FROM THIS FASCISM... PLEASE I BEG OF YOU. visit Rense.com for a bit of real enlightenment. Thank-you. Jack Posted by: Jack Cochran at July 20, 2005 12:04 AM Looks like President Bush made a solid and wise choice. I look forward to learning more about Mr. Roberts. The extreme left, fueled with hate and guided by a distorted view of reality will oppose anyone that the President nominates. So there is little reason to pay attention to them. Sensible Americans who don’t rely on the left-wing media for all their information will likely support Roberts.
Posted by: Damon at July 20, 2005 12:17 AM Jeff says he wants to find a bumper sticker that says "Military kill terrorist, Democrats kill babies." Really? Generalize much, Jeff? I know many Republicans who are Pro-choice. And most polls show that the majority of Americans want Roe v. Wade upheld. Second, he states "I believe women have the choice over their bodies, and what happens to them. I just believe some of the choices should be illegal." Given the fact that Jeff is a man and will never have to face an unplanned pregnancy, I'm thinking he needs to shut his pie-hole. Quite frankly, his opinion doesn't count. Posted by: Pam at July 20, 2005 12:31 AM ~Given the fact that Jeff is a man and will never have to face an unplanned pregnancy, I'm thinking he needs to shut his pie-hole. Quite frankly, his opinion doesn't count.~ Spoken like a true Liberal, Pam. It must pain you to hear people speak freely and openly. Time to go back to your Group-Think tank. Posted by: Bob at July 20, 2005 12:42 AM George Bush won the election. To the victors go the spoils. He is going to leave his mark on the court as is his right. If you don't like the nominations, then win the presidency or at least win control of the senate. It is as simple as that. Democrats talking about a filibuster are trying to impose a super majority affirmative vote on nominees instead of the simple majority that is prescribed. They just can't get over the fact that their ideas are in the minority, not the "mainstream" as they define it. Let's have a dignified hearing, air out the issues, and have an up or down vote. Posted by: Mark at July 20, 2005 01:17 AM Of the opinions I've read thus far, only one makes sense: "Sorry, but those of us in the public do not have enough information about this guy to have anything but a foolish opinion" by Jorge. Other comments have been mostly biased along party lines. If I were to have an objection to Roberts it is exactly that he may not have the experience for the highest court in the nation. Academically he is qualified and seemingly moral enough to follow the letter of the law. That being said, with the amiguities of law, he will likely lean to the right on controversial issues. The Supreme Court does not make law. If one wants to change law, then the issue is with Congress. I believe the Democrats should be very, very careful with this one. If there is an objection based on tangible evidence, then make it. Though with good reasons, the Democrats are coming across as an obstruction to government. This is not helping their credibility. As with the 2004 election, the majority of the nation will lean right when there is not a better choice. Tom in Cincinnati Posted by: Tom Strothers at July 20, 2005 03:53 AM Roberts is an extremist, just like Bush. He should be opposed, and will be, with all means available. I love hearing about how "the American people" elected Bush, so Bush's choice naturally represents the will of the American people. So I suppose that means that the majority of U.S. citizen's support Bush's War? Think again, Bucky. It's simple-minded thinking like that that allows criminals like Karl Rove to manipulate the electorate into voting against their own best interest, again and again. A Supreme Court with Roberts would start the court on a descent into politicization and irrelevancy. He must be stopped. He will be. I'm sure he's a good, a competent, an honest man. We just can't have such an extreme partisan player in the highest court. Posted by: George Standfast at July 20, 2005 05:41 AM From the information that I have read, this nominee, as a lawyer, worked for both sides - prosecution and defense. Which ever side offered him the most money. Hmmm....I wonder how much money he's being offered NOW. Posted by: Old Kansan at July 20, 2005 05:45 AM Wait, so now we're all up in arms about Roe vs. Wade? I thought we were supposed to be worried about the gays? And the Family Values? What's next -- a Supreme Court nominee who's going to take a "strong yet reasoned" view on witches? Posted by: J. West at July 20, 2005 06:19 AM Chris Floyd writes: The main focus of debate on the pick will undoubtedly be Roberts' statement on abortion, while serving as deputy solicitor general Bush I, declaring that Roe v. Wade was wrong. This is the only "controversial" angle cited by the NY Times' loving – not to say groveling – profile this morning, which then goes on to give Roberts an alibi, if he wants it: that he was only dutifully stating the government's position at the time. But all of this is a smokescreen. The NY Times doesn't even mention Roberts' most dangerous decision, issued just last Friday, when, as part of a panel of appeals judges, he upheld Bush's outrageous claim of dictatorial powers: the right to dispose of anyone he arbitrarily designates an "enemy combatant" as he sees fit; in this case, sending them to the kangaroo court "military tribunals" he has concocted. I'm writing more extensively on this case for the Moscow Times later this week, but here's the gist: Roberts' decision is part of an on-going process of elevating the president beyond the reach of law -- essentially a slow-rolling coup d'etat, replacing the old American Republic (or what's left of it) with an authoritarian "Commander-in-Chief State." Introducing Judge Dread: The Affable Accomplice of a Coup d'etat http://empireburlesquenow.blogspot.com/2005/07/introducing-judge-dread-affable.html Posted by: PhilK at July 20, 2005 06:29 AM Someone gets to defend the gender fascist point of view and here I go. In the history of this republic there have been 191+/- men and two women on the Supreme Court. As far as I am concerned there could be 191 more women named ahead of any men and I would have no problems about parity. I am not even particularly impressed with Mr. Roberts' Harvard credentials. Remember, he's being nominated to replace someone who graduated at the top of her class at Stanford LAw and who could not get any other job after law school except as a legal secretary. Bush family members have tried to nominate Roberts THREE times, and Mr. Bush's chirping about Roberts being best qualified candidate sounds to me like more cronyism. Who know how many other women or minority cancidates might be just as qualified?, or even more so since they have had to get honed and be effective in spite of historical patterns of discrimination and male bias! I think this nomination is cynically designed to do two things: to distract the public from the disaster that is the US occupationof Iraq and to get Karl Rove off the front pages when he should be frog-marched out the front door of the White House in handcuffs. I am sorry that even if Mr Roberts is a distinguished jurist and possibly even a likeable guy, his nomination will be forever tainted in my mind by this timing. I hope Mr. Roberts gets a thorough vetting in the Senate, and I wish the few Republican women in the Seante would stand up for their gender and for women's liberty! Posted by: Dorene Cornwell at July 20, 2005 06:46 AM My, my, my ... "we" are an uncivil bunch, aren't we. Posted by: judyo at July 20, 2005 06:51 AM Good for the P-I. This exchange has allowed Seattle liberals to demonstrate the viciousness of their social bigotry. Posted by: Dave at July 20, 2005 06:59 AM A "STEALTH" CANDIDATE THROWN OUT EARLY TO TAKE THE HEADLINES AWAY FROM ROVE. ARE THERE ANY CON- Posted by: jahn at July 20, 2005 07:05 AM Conservatives with self-respect? Now THERE's a contradiction in terms. That's almost as contradictory as saying the Dubya is smart. Posted by: Old Kansan at July 20, 2005 07:11 AM What a surprise...Bush chooses a non-moderate. But when you're a slave to the right-wing weirdos, do you really have a choice? Posted by: Misty Speck at July 20, 2005 07:11 AM Roberts is keeping with Bush's ideology but NOT either of his bogus campaign promises. He's Rehnquist's former clerk, which basically makes him a much younger version of the ailing Rehnquist --- it's a joke, really. Bush originally ran on two levels --- one as a "compassionate conservative," and the other as a "uniter, not a divider." Roberts is as devisive a choice as former Atty General Ashcroft or any of the many rock-solid conservatives in Bush's cabinet. What a joke --- Bush doesn't even throw a bone to the opposition, or appoint a woman in place of the departing justice (women make up 52% of the population, but seldom few are on the Supreme Court). Bush's speeding up the nomination process also represents what the Republicans do the very best: changing the subject. The Karl Rove/CIA leak has been top news fodder as of late, and Bush quickly naming his new nominee is, to me at least, a clear way to change subjects. Poor Dubya looked awfully nervous when having to explain how "The Architect" himself made a big, big boo-boo. I love how all of these Republicans from BYU and other places "consistent with American values" are trolling the internet chat boards, preaching about the "vocal minority" in America, even though the MAJORITY of Americans, according to countless polls, now disapprove of Bush's job performance and now only 41% of Americans find him to be honest and competent. Month after month, less people are happy with Bush's job performance. I also love the notion that Bush won by this HUGE margin --- he certainly was re-elected, but by a small percentage, lacking the clear and considerable electoral victories of his predecessors, Clinton, Bush I and particularly Reagan. Those of you who support this nomination for Supreme Court are correct in pointing out that Bush won, and the Dems have nobody to blame but themselves and especially Kerry, whose campaign was worse than Gore's. Enjoy your glee while it lasts, and continue to take pride in all of those innocent Iraqis that are dead (100,000+) not to mention those brave American soldiers who are fighting --- and being killed or severely injured --- in that war you love so much but are so unwilling to fight yourself. Posted by: Paul at July 20, 2005 07:19 AM Since this guy has been tucked neatly away in the Washington DC beltway, it is really had to determine his stripes. However, also being a former Hoosier, as the judge, It would be no surprise he is ultra conservative. Quite frankly, I am tired of Roe v Wade irrational argument about women's choice. Women have a right to choose, yes - obstain, use birth control, etc.; not get rid of a hangover simply because you have reprocussions after a night of loose sex as a result of drinking. I hope, he is what he purports to be and not a wolf in sheeps clothing. Posted by: Steve Neuenschwander at July 20, 2005 07:39 AM I thought for a moment he might pick a consensus choice. What was I thinking? Thinking back to his campaign, it's hard to believe he campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider." Everything he has done has been to divide the country and pander to ultra conservative right. Posted by: Patrick at July 20, 2005 07:49 AM Another sad move for the United States by the Bush Administration to pugh the Neo Conservative Agenda. Posted by: Robert at July 20, 2005 07:52 AM Doesn't matter one damm bit...the Constitution was declared null and void by our goverment a long time ago. Posted by: Former Patriot at July 20, 2005 08:17 AM Hey, liberals want to kill kids with abortions and conservatives want to kill them with wars and free use of the death penalty...it's all in just the timing! Posted by: stan at July 20, 2005 08:22 AM Wow, so many conservatives posting to this board. Lots of time on your hands? What's the matter fellas (notice the reference to male, white male that is)? Has your darling Bush's economy left you out of work? Or maybe you stalled on signing up to go to Iraq, your other favorite place to be? Oh I know what it is, today's Wednesday, Pat Roberts doesn't come on until what, 4 p.m.? Posted by: Jason at July 20, 2005 08:24 AM We need to find ways to work together to solve today's problems. Bickering back and forth won't work much longer. We face serious threats to our existence (i.e. global warming, falling water tables, species extinction, pollution, to name a few) and we still are relegated to name-calling and juvenile pettiness. Making bumper stickers that say "Military kills terrorists, Democrats kill babies" is not going to win people to your argument and only causes others to question your age and level of schooling. We as a nation must mature through education and diligence--lest we truly fall faster than we anticipated. This should be a time to argue for increasing the availability of education to all, for it seems we are stricken, as a nation, with blinding and harmful ignorance. Posted by: Jason at July 20, 2005 08:39 AM Heh Heh 22 years active duty military, 12 mos in Pleiku RSVN (1965-66). Maybe Jason should be out looking for a job. I earned my right to read NEWSMAX, DRUDGE, FREEPERS ect. and I probably did more to protect Jason's right to express his opinion than he has. I'm only sorry that President Bush didn't have Carl Rove at his left when he introduced his choice of Associate Justice to the Supreme Court. Judge John Roberts. Posted by: Michael B. Williams at July 20, 2005 09:13 AM Wow. What a lot of name-calling and vitriol from both sides of the political arena. Life is not black and white; it is composed of infinite shades of gray. Not all Americans are far-right or far-left in their politics. I suspect the vast majority are close to the middle. This is why the last presidential election was so close: there is no "middle party" so the moderates amongst us had to pick one or the other. When it comes to our Supreme Court justices, who make the laws for the entire country, it is hugely important that they represent all Americans, not just those with a particular bias or political agenda. It's a lot like raising two children with a serious case of sibling rivalry. You can't hope to make one happy without upsetting the other, so you aim for something in the middle. As a woman, I'd love to see another woman appointed to our highest court, but she'd have to meet the same criteria as a man: honesty, integrity, fairness, legal expertise, and intelligence. I'm no political expert (nor, from the sound of things, is anyone else who is posting on this forum), but it seems to me that Roberts leans too far to the right to provide the balance that this country so desperately needs. Posted by: Catherine at July 20, 2005 09:17 AM Kinda like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Right? Posted by: Michael B. Williams at July 20, 2005 09:30 AM People should just realize that it doesn't matter which party nominates which candidate. They should know that our "democracy" was proven a farce long ago and that the people in charge only serve those who have a lot of money. This guy will play on our fears with nasty issues like abortion while they dismantle all labor and environmental protections. We will be working harder than ever for less money than ever in a strip mined world with no trees. This is Roberts is just another soldier for the rich elite - it won't matter who is nominated, their goals are all the same. The only real change that can happen is when the people take the government back. Posted by: Ben at July 20, 2005 09:39 AM I see a lot written about moral values and how Bush has hit the mark here. I think it is really sad to see that you are basing Moral values are not based on hate as well as your point of view only. Morals should be based on fairness, justice, and kindness for your fellow humans beings. To be honest we need to get beyond the this and decide if we want to be a free country or not. The lack of court history here as well as his work against the disabled and being a puppet for Bush, this guy will take us in the wrong direction as a county that stands on freedom. The quote of "beaten into submission by the land of the free" it becoming true. I see it every day, and I am saddened by it. Posted by: Franny at July 20, 2005 09:45 AM Don't need to know any more about the man beyond the fact he is bush's first choice. Obviously, if bush likes him, he's an extremist. Too bad for the United States that Sandra O'Conner chose to retire. Or did she really chose to? Posted by: tom at July 20, 2005 09:46 AM Hilarious to see the predictable liberal reaction on this forum. You guys would be sandbagging ANY nominee. Once again Bush pulls an Ace out from under the deck and renders the left impotent. So many angry, bitter libs in Seattle. You guys need to get out in the 'real world' every once in a while. Posted by: joe mccarthy at July 20, 2005 09:50 AM Nice Tom. Anothing winning conspiracy theory by the loony left. Sandra Day didn't choose to retire -- it's all part of a big plot. Ha ha ha. Too funny man. Posted by: joe mccarthy at July 20, 2005 09:54 AM Uh, Michael, Karl Rove spells his name with a "K" (as in KKK) not a "C" my friend. If you are going to kiss someone's fanny at least know how to spell his name. But then again, blind allegiance does necessarily require ignorance. Posted by: Jan at July 20, 2005 09:54 AM Equally hilarious to see the predictable conservatives speaking out in defense of anyone nominated by their beloved if misguided fearless leader, regardless of said nominee's qualifications for the position. I'm also amused by your reference to Bush cheating (dealing from the bottom of the deck) in order to advance his own agenda. I'm neither angry nor bitter. Disappointed and saddened are better adjectives to describe my feelings about the current state of this country. Posted by: Catherine at July 20, 2005 09:58 AM Catherine you sounds like so many of the far lefties in this town. Sad, defeated, bitter. Too bad you can't see the good in this country and what it stands for. Like most lefties all you can do is look at the bad because in your heart of hearts you truly hate what America stands for and want to see her fail. Like your brethren at Kook On.Org you wish nothing more than to see America humiliated and neutered. Posted by: joe mccarthy at July 20, 2005 10:04 AM Great choice by President Bush. Young enough to be on the court a long time. Posted by: Mike at July 20, 2005 10:24 AM Wow. I'm really impressed with Joe. McCarthy? That name rings a bell. My country right or wrong!.. Love it or leave it! But by god all you lefties out there better not question it, right Joe? GET A LIFE! Posted by: tom at July 20, 2005 10:27 AM I will, of course, wait to hear more about this guy before deciding exactly what I think of him -- I find the statements here about how well-qualified or ill-qualified he is to be, frankly laughable. I seriously doubt anyone posting here knew much about the man before last night or has done much serious research since then. The posts that claim him a wonderful or terrible choice only serve to give us the political affiliations of the respective posters. That said, I am troubled by what I've heard so far -- namely that he is not the middle-of-the-road candidate that a Gonzalez or even a Clement might have represented. This strikes me as just more of the intensely partisan attitude that this administration has carried forth like none before it. I almost wonder if they didn't decide on a very conservative candidate knowing that a protracted and bitter confirmation battle will distract from the news of the Plame investigation or somehow help Bush's horribly sagging poll numbers by making Congressional Ds look like obstructionists. Regardless, I think it may backfire. I have a friend who voted for Bush on purely economic grounds. Another friend said she was going to, but was afraid of losing abortion rights. The Bush voter laughed and said, essentially, that would be a ridiculous fear because abortion rights are NEVER going away. Now I wonder how many other Bush voters felt that same way and are now rethinking things. Posted by: Cheryl at July 20, 2005 10:27 AM Oh no, McCarthy's back! Seriously, it really is impressive to see a group of people saying the same things at the same time the same way. Is there some sort of Fascist camp in the summer conservatives go to learn how to speak? Really, you all same the same slogans in lockstep as if plugged in to one transmitter. Must be all those "brilliant" (dare I say loony?)conservative radio talk show hosts that tell you what to say and how to think. It kind of reminds me of George Orwell's 1984, or Hitler's Nazi party. Let's face the truth though shall we? Fear, fear, and fear are the three pillars of the Republican party platform. It is the only way they can tenuosuly hold onto power and they know it. Their problem, which they also know, is that the people will stay scared for only so long. Then the treasonous actions of the likes of Rove and company will no longer be tolerated, and decency will be finally restored in this country. Posted by: Billy at July 20, 2005 10:30 AM Kind of like Robert C. (as in KKK)Byrd. Right? Posted by: Michael B. Williams at July 20, 2005 10:33 AM So many generalizations. So little understanding of the real issues. As I said, I am not bitter and I am not angry. And I am most certainly not defeated. I truly believe there is a way for the people of this country to work together for the common good rather than being divided so severely that sometimes it seems as if we're headed for civil war. I am not an extreme leftist, no matter how much you (Joe and Mike and other conservatives) want to pigeonhole everyone whose ideas differ from your own. You don't seem to see that by lashing out at liberals you yourself sound extreme. I absolutely do not wish to see this country be humiliated or neutered. I would love for us to return to the position of respect and leadership we once enjoyed. However, in the world's view, the United States is fast becoming a laughingstock. Now, can we please stop with the name-callling and juvenile attacks and have a mature discussion of the original issue, which is whether or not Mr. Roberts is an appropriate candidate for the Supreme Court? Posted by: Catherine at July 20, 2005 10:39 AM A nicer, kinder Eric Rudolph. For all of you prancing around whether a woman has a right to decide about carrying a pregnancy to term, it isn't any of your business. Go to your closet, get a coat hanger, imagine that in your sister or daughter. For many women, that was the only "reproductive right" they had 40 years ago. As the man said, "You'll know them by the company they keep." Neuter thyself, hypocrite: every sperm is not sacred. The American flag should not be used as a condom by conservative twits. Posted by: Craig at July 20, 2005 10:47 AM Insults our intelligence. Dishonest corporate layer with a background in neocon think tanks; anti- environment, anti-choice. Besides, Congress should indict Karl Rove before considering Schrub's nominees. Posted by: patriotdude at July 20, 2005 11:06 AM Isn’t it funny how all the leftists here on this board are calling Roberts an “extremists”, a “neocon” (whatever that is supposed to mean.), a “threat to women’s rights”, blah, blah, blah? Less than 24 hours ago, no one here ever even heard of judge John Roberts so how is it that all the leftists are so sure that Roberts is such a bad choice for the Supreme Court? The fact is, they don’t know. But emotional reasoning and hate drives people on the political Left. They will automatically hate and despise anything that a non-liberal does. Especially, a Republican President. The Seattle PI is a liberal newspaper in a liberal city so it’s no surprise that we’re seeing so many of these outlandish comments. To a large extent, papers like the PI are responsible for this. The media has become so biased and agenda-driven that is more of a propaganda vehicle for the Left rather than a news source. Sadly, many liberals have lost the ability to reason and they simply accept whatever the liberal media them. Dave, you got it exactly right when you posted above that, “This exchange has allowed Seattle liberals to demonstrate the viciousness of their social bigotry.” Posted by: Nathan at July 20, 2005 11:15 AM Isn’t it funny how all the leftists here on this board are calling Roberts an “extremists”, a “neocon” (whatever that is supposed to mean.), a “threat to women’s rights”, blah, blah, blah? Less than 24 hours ago, no one here ever even heard of judge John Roberts so how is it that all the leftists are so sure that Roberts is such a bad choice for the Supreme Court? The fact is, they don’t know. But emotional reasoning and hate drives people on the political Left. They will automatically hate and despise anything that a non-liberal does. Especially, a Republican President. The Seattle PI is a liberal newspaper in a liberal city so it’s no surprise that we’re seeing so many of these outlandish comments. To a large extent, papers like the PI are responsible for this. The media has become so biased and agenda-driven that is more of a propaganda vehicle for the Left rather than a news source. Sadly, many liberals have lost the ability to reason and they simply accept whatever the liberal media tells them. Dave, you got it exactly right when you posted above that, “This exchange has allowed Seattle liberals to demonstrate the viciousness of their social bigotry.” Posted by: Nathan at July 20, 2005 11:16 AM If some one in this discussion, Nathan, doesn't know what neocons are, then they have some reading to do before being able to contribute an informed opinion. Posted by: patriotdude at July 20, 2005 11:20 AM It is difficult to read all of the hateful rhetoric on both sides of this. Conservatives are going to laud Bush's choice no matter what and Liberals are going to villify it NO MATTER WHAT. The majority of these posts could have been written yesterday before we even knew who the nominee was, they are that generically partisan. What happened to being able to have a civil dialogue and at least acknowledging the other side ahs a point once in a while. I grew up in a liberal household but as of the last few years have become so disenchanted with the way that liberals have come to spew such hateful generalizations at any one who disagrees with them. Didn't the liberal agenda used to be comprised of tolerance of other's views and choices. So now you say you must respect someone being gay but not someone being conservative in nature? Shame on you. Look in your heart and tell me that there is not an extreme amount of hate mongering going on in the left that used to be reserved for the far right. As far as abortion, well I have always struggled with it. In my heart I believe it is wrong and not an acceptable form of Birth Control for an unplanned pregnancy. I believe in choice, but I also believe in accountability for the choices that one makes including having sex. We were all taught in health class that pregnancy is a possible consequence of being sexually active. We have gotten to the point in this country where all anyone can do is scream about how this and that is their right without acknowledging the consequences of said actions. Most of you know very little about this nominee. Wait until the hearings to pass judgement. Be kind to one another. Posted by: Jeff at July 20, 2005 11:20 AM Gee, after witnessing Karl Rove's respect for the law, the facts, and sound judgement, I figured Bush would have nominated rove for the court. Posted by: charles bird at July 20, 2005 11:29 AM President Bush has made a very poor choice.Him and his conservative allies are at last making their move to turn the U.S. Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for their policys. Roberts is a very obvious choice to placate the GOP's allies among the far right wheither religious or otherwise.Bush is trying to lay a good foundation for the next Presidental election in '08 and keep these allies in the GOP camp. The one thing that many here seems to me have overlooked and that a statement by Justice O'Connor and two other on the high court made in either Newsweek or U.S. News and World report at the time of Clintons first election. That was NONE would retire until there was another conservative GOP President.Obvious O'Connor kept her word. Posted by: Alan at July 20, 2005 11:34 AM I am not sure Judge Roberts is conservative enough to take the power back from the activists judges who make laws. What most of the liberals on this page do not understand is the job of a job. A judge interprets laws based on original intent of the legislature. Laws are made by the elected officials of the people. This is called a SEPARATION OF POWERS just in case this not totally understood by some of the liberals who have written on this page. Also, it is not up to the Senate to select Federal judges it is up to the President. There job is find some legal or moral problem in the candidates job that disqualifies him from serving and that does not mean does he agree with Roe v. Wade or not. There is no constitutional test for a judge except integrity. Posted by: Don at July 20, 2005 11:34 AM A response about George Steadfast's comment about the election. The 2004 election was framed by the Democrats and the liberal media as being a referemdom on the war in Iraq and they still lost. They were facing a president that had a less than 50% job approval, we were in an unpopular war, and they still couldn't take advantage of the situation and win on any level, house, senate, or governorships. That means the nation rejected the opposition candidates and/or the ideas they ran on. The country has a slightly conserative tilt to it so it is only fitting that the court move in that direction. Posted by: Mark at July 20, 2005 11:38 AM All of the folks who voted for Bush for economic reasons are having their chickens come home to roost now... as for liberals being full of "hate", we've learned from the best. The right has been on point for hate for quite a long time now, especially on abortion (I've yet to hear of anyone bombing fundamentalist churches Posted by: Lono at July 20, 2005 11:45 AM Sorry liberals but America is a Conservative nation. You might think Seattle is representative of the country but it is not. Seattle is on the outside of America looking in. Most Americans love their country. We support our troops and we understand we are at war with a deadly and ruthless enemy that will gladly silt your throat or mine regardless of who we voted for. Judge Roberts appears to be good man and a good choice for the Supreme Court. But because so many of you liberals are out of touch with reality and filled with venom, the more you say bad things about Judge Roberts, the more Americans will know that he is the right man for the job. Posted by: Alan at July 20, 2005 12:09 PM Well Lono why don't we have the same rule on murder or rape? Don't like it, don't do it. We all have a responsibility to stand up for what we believe in, truning a blind eye to it in passivity and saying "oh well doesn't affect me" is ignorant. I feel that by speaking up I am standing up for the trampled rights of the unborn child. That's right I called it a child, in my heart that's what I believe it is. Not because any religion told me so but because my heart and mind tell me so and I am just ass entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. So, believing as I do that abortion is murdering a helpless human being, if I were to turn a blind eye to it and not speak up in defense how evil would that make me? You don't have to agree with my point, but please for the sake of a sane debate at least consider what I have said from my perspective the way that I do with you. I know you have valid points based on your beliefs. So do I. So it is not an issue of "not affecting me" so I should butt out. As a member of society I happen to believe that this issue affects everyone. Again, my opinion. And have you really not heard of churches being bombed or being subject to arson. Happens quite a lot actually, probably every bit as often as an abortion clinic being bombed. And just because I am fundamentally opposed to abortion, please do not attempt to lump me in with those who bomb an abortion clinic, that is offensive. Also, just because the far right has been hateful in the past does not justify it for them or for the left's new vitriol. Posted by: Jeff at July 20, 2005 12:17 PM "The media has become so biased and agenda-driven that is more of a propaganda vehicle for the Left rather than a news source." -Nathan- I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody cites the mith of the "liberal media". It seems that people actually believe this. Amazing! The fact is, of course, that most media is owned by a few large corporations, most of them affiliated with conservative (i.e. republican) interests. With a few exceptions, most media is either bad, interested only in profits and providing cheap entretainment, or when it has a political bias it is actually a right-wing bias. For example, in most newcasts, events in Iraq are displayed over a banner that says "War on Terror". If this is not a right-wing bias, I don't know what it is. Posted by: Julian at July 20, 2005 12:20 PM America is not a conservative nation, nor is it a liberal nation. It is a divided nation. President Bush may have won the election, but he did it by the slimmest margin in history. Don't accuse the liberals of being full of venom; there is just as much, if not more, hatred coming from the conservatives. I have seen only a few postings here in which there was no animosity. Hopefully, the administration has enough sense to choose a Supreme Court justice based not on "well, the liberals don't like him/her so s/he must be the right choice" and instead will choose based on qualifications, integrity, and merit. Personally, I trust that the Senate hearings will determine whether or not Roberts is the right person for the job. The Senate is far more qualified to make that determination than emotional, biased, and undereducated folks such as ourselves. Posted by: Catherine at July 20, 2005 12:21 PM I never knew that we were endangered of getting our mines silted. That changed everything. BTW Alan, some of the most liberal countries in the world are in Europe. They are also considered some of the most diplomatic... Being left or right doesn't necessarily make you hated by other people in this world, but being arrogant and self centered does. As for being out of touch with reality?? travel a little and learn about reality. Living in the US skews your mind to what is real. Posted by: ian at July 20, 2005 12:24 PM Rove would have been an excellent nominee--he's crooked enough for this administration. Would you want your daughter having a back-alley abortion with unsterile instruments and possibly not even a medical doctor performing the procedure?! Think about it because it may well happen. Yes--YOUR DAUGHTER. Many women in this country face abuse every day, and telling their spouses or parents they are pregnant could cause severe harm to these women. We do NOT need a judge who will aid in overturning Roe v Wade! There is also stem-cell research that desperately needs to be funded to save lives that are already here and stop diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's altogether! Think of it! No matter what 'side' you're on, just THINK for a minute! Why can't we all think as humans, not 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' and look at the reality of TODAY'S world instead of the yuk-yuk happy-go-lucky 1950s that conservatives think was so wonderful and imagine we still should have the mindset of? (Hint: it wasn't wonderful. Unless you're a McCarthy fan.) I don't understand why we can't all work together as a nation and stop bush from dictating our every move. Did I say something like 'dictatorship'? Sorry, I meant Theocracy. Every day we push further towards having the Christian God (as bush sees Him) be interpereted as having a hand in running the government, down to so-called 'face-to-face' talks with Him! Absurd! The American reputation is sinking all over the world, if one reads the national newspapers on the net its glaringly obvious. And we have only ourselves to blame--the guy didn't win by a landslide, but he fixed it just enough that he DID win. And nobody was fast enough to catch it. Liberals are enmired in paperwork and tossing the ball around but getting nowhere, and Conservatives are enmired in hatred for the Liberals and seeing who has the biggest flag on their flatbed. PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER!, a poet named Patti Smith sang. Our constitution says that too. However, bush is chipping away at that founding document every day of his life. He continues to nominate judges that will tip the scales so we have an all-conservative Supreme Court, taking away even more freedoms that Americans have enjoyed for over 200 years. Yet he says he is a patriot. A patriot with blood of innocents on his hands. I don't trust ANYONE he nominates. And pray for fewer 'ayes' in this and any far-right Supreme Court nomination. I don't give a hoot what this particular nominee has done, I just know if he's glowingly chosen by bush, something has to be amiss. I truly hope we can come together as a COUNTRY instead of 2 factions--red and blue. Posted by: Glenna Foreman at July 20, 2005 12:32 PM "Laws are made by the elected officials of the people. This is called a SEPARATION OF POWERS just in case this not totally understood by some of the liberals who have written on this page"
I don't trust this adminstration for obvious reasons and I certainly do not trust their choices. Nothing they say can be believed anymore. I guess we need a stained dress and a lie about an affair for us to notice. Apparently using Americas patriotism to get what they want and to supress dissent is perfectly moral. History is not kind to those who do so, or to those who feel it's affects. That is so sad because I thought we stood as one after 911, forsaking the party rifts for the protection of this great nation. We were united then like I have never witnessed before. Not so long ago I was there with the President and wept as he stood in the rubble of the two towers. Today we are as divided as I have ever seen and I feel betrayed. Blame the Democrats for this? I have a tough time believing that since they do not hold much for power these days, while the Republicans are in charge and carrying the ball, this is THEIR DESIGN. It doesn't get much more outrageous than that. In my long career it's always been the leader who has to answer for the rights and wrongs. If I spent all of my time blaming somebody else I would not have a job today. It's all about money and power folks, nothing else. It's just that some choose to do anything to get it, while the rest of us suffer for it trying to retain our own morality. Posted by: Bill at July 20, 2005 12:34 PM Clinton nominated partisan hacks like Bush has nominated. The Right complained about Clinton's nominations of Breyer and even worse, Ginsberg. Clinton was elected and he could nominate anyone who he felt could do the job...regardless of their ideology. Bush is free to do the same thing. I give President Bush kudos for a wonderful, partisan-friendly nominee. No I won't agree with him on everything, but Bush is going to nominate a more conservative pick for Renquist and hopefully Steven's seat. Posted by: Abe at July 20, 2005 12:46 PM “…travel a little and learn about reality. Living in the US skews your mind to what is real…” Well Ian, there’s no doubt you are a liberal. When you say stuff like that above, it only reveals that while you may live in America, you have little love or respect for it. And you are so naïve! You don’t think an Islamic terrorist wouldn’t kill you if he could. Unless you are a devout Muslim and you cheer Bin Laden’s name, you are an infidel to them. And if Europe is so much better, why do you live here? It is because of your condescending attitude that is so typical of liberals, that you people continue to lose elections. Americans are not going to support people to who not like their country. Why do you assume I don’t travel? I’ve been to Europe. Its nice but I prefer being in America. I value my freedom here and I appreciate the opportunity that America offers my family and me. That’s the difference between you and me. Posted by: Alan at July 20, 2005 12:51 PM "And have you really not heard of churches being bombed or being subject to arson. Happens quite a lot actually, probably every bit as often as an abortion clinic being bombed." I am sure that this is the work of non-secular liberal suicide bombers, not the crazy fundamentalists that will do anything to impress their views on others. As we all know, all religious faiths get along so well together. I pray for the day when we, as Americans have the freedom to openly worship a God of our own choosing and to elect a leader who shares the same beliefs! (ignoring the fact that the last 43 consecutive leaders have) Someday we'll be able to build churches as far as we can see and educate all of the non-believers of the beauty of Christ! Tell this to the Native Americans. They know all too well about being bombed and burned while their very identity is erased, all in the name of God. NOBODY is removing your right to believe and worship as you choose, some are just mightily angry about being told to do so. To think otherwise is laughably absurd. Posted by: Bill at July 20, 2005 12:55 PM I think Roberts is reasonably qualified and represents the "average" American viewpoint (within one standard deviation or so ;-). I make that point because there isn't a single set of "right" or "left" beliefs, "democrat" or "republican" beliefs, "conservative" or "liberal" beliefs. In fact, "conservative" has at least three major definitions within the Republican party and very few members qualify under all three. So, given a spectrum of American beliefs, Roberts looks to be well within the sweet spot of the bell curve. That being said, I am disappointed in this choice of nomination for two reasons. First, Roberts does nothing to assist the Supreme Court in becoming more demographically representative of the country. While his legal thinking may be in line with "mainstream" America (or close to it), I don't see him bringing the personal perspective or history to the job that I think the court needs in order to be representative of the country. Second, I think his longstanding "insider" status on the beltway is cause for pause, if not concern. D.C. is an insular community that doesn't, I believe, really understand the rest of us. That's true of Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals of every stripe. I'll be curious as to how the confirmation hearings go. I think they should be fair, but rigorous. His lack of experience on the Federal bench is of little concern - there was talk of appointing someone who had no judicial experience, as has been done many times in history. No, it's his ability to independently reason and articulate fairness and justice that needs to be probed. This shouldn't just be from a paper record, but under scrutiny of the Senate. As pointed out, it is the Presidents perogative (I won't say "right") to appoint justices, but he does so with (as the *constitution* says) the advice and consent of the legislature. BTW, one more thing that isn't constrained to either side is Judicial Activism. Janice Rogers Brown (one of Bush's recent hard-fought appointees) is the most open and articulate advocate for Judicial Activism. She has stated quite clearly that the court must not side with the majority when the majority is wrong, even if they put it into law. Roberts, on the other hand, hasn't really said anything that notable. Posted by: Topher at July 20, 2005 12:58 PM The geat divider gets his way one more time. Roberts is bomb proof. Posted by: david young at July 20, 2005 12:59 PM Bush nominated a tool box to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Well it was nice to have control of my uterus, at least for a little while. He nominated a man that when his father tried to get this FAMILY FRIEND nominated to the Federal bench the first time, a republican controled senate nixed him! This country is split on everything, *except* that the replacment should be a woman, and he messed that up too. Our President is such a puppet. Why does he even pretend to have non-partisan interest. At least if he hung a big banner on the White House saying, "America: Under New Management (Sponsored by Enron, Halliburton, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco & friends.)", we could no longer accuse him of being a lying, shady, out-of-touch prick. He would just be an out-of-touch prick. I'm so frustrated. I wish that I wasn't consistently ashamed of my President Posted by: Ves at July 20, 2005 01:00 PM The great divider gets his way one more time. Roberts is bomb proof. Posted by: david young at July 20, 2005 01:05 PM Why is it that abortion is the one issue to come to light when we talk about Judges,Is roberts a good choice prehaps,yes he a consevative,and a smart one at that,we need judges who are educated on the rights we have to up hold,The Supreme court did side with larry flynt in 87,weren't there right wingers on the court then?Plus most presidents have been disapointed in how there justices have voted,Roberts ins't a justice yet. Posted by: Jeff J at July 20, 2005 01:09 PM I was hoping to be able to add a little information to the debate. I am in law school at Duke University and have read some of Judge Roberts' opinions and had heard of him before yesterday. Posted by: paul at July 20, 2005 01:15 PM I am reposting my earlier sentiments as I feel they still apply. It is difficult to read all of the hateful rhetoric on both sides of this. Conservatives are going to laud Bush's choice no matter what and Liberals are going to villify it NO MATTER WHAT. The majority of these posts could have been written yesterday before we even knew who the nominee was, they are that generically partisan. What happened to being able to have a civil dialogue and at least acknowledging the other side ahs a point once in a while.
Posted by: Jeff at July 20, 2005 01:16 PM I think our founding fathers did a great job of writting our constitution. I don't think we need to have judges writting laws or changing laws from the bench. Why is an appointed justice viewed as far right when his track record sugests he follows the constitution. I thought we were the greatest country in the world based on our constitution. Why is it a bad thing thing when the President nominates someone that will follow the constitution. Posted by: Roger at July 20, 2005 01:29 PM It is sad to witness so many contributors to this forum spewing hatred all over anyone who has any difference of opinion. It is hard to get anyone to question their own beliefs when they immediately call you names and dismiss you as soon as you start to question. And, if you can stop for a minute to actually think about what kinds of movements have created so many horrors throughout history, it tends to be angry people who shout down their opponents, ignore questions, call their opponents names to demonize them, demand vast powers to combat their enemies... not to mention, claim they are doing the work of God, or fulfilling the inevitable will of History. For the love of life, if you can manage to actually look at yourself, and you see yourself spitting venom and demonizing other humans, take that as a serious warning. The Jacobins after the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, the NAZI fascists in Germany, were all very good at name-calling and demonizing. Their movements also became very good at mass murder and war. They also did not need to be a "representative majority" or "embody the values of the people" in order to seize power. It is not necessarily a "Right" or "Left" attribute. However, today in the USA, George Bush is leading a movement that uses name-calling, demonization, war, and the righteous gathering of unchecked power. We live in a very dangerous time, and all the name-callers and demonizers on the talk-radio Right who troll these lists and forums to spew their vitriol, are playing an important role in the rise of a new brand of Fascism in this country. There was a time in Stalin's rise to power before the Gulags were up and running. There was a time in Hitler's rise to power before the Death Camps were up and running, and before he launched WWII. Before you demonize me and spit nasty names at me, please note that almost the entire world outside the USA considers George Bush's USA to be the greatest threat to global security -- greater than Islamic fascism, greater than the rise of China, greater than any "Axis of Evil". This is because the world can see the USA more objectively than people inside the USA can, and they are measuring our actions against the historical record of the rise of evil nations. Posted by: web at July 20, 2005 01:34 PM Do worry guys. Even though Judge Roberts is a decent guy with a marvelous wife and two adopted kids, he won't turn the abortion regime around that quickly. He doesn't have that much power. Look at the last time the Democratic party reduced a class of human beings to subhuman/property status. It resulted in another 7-2 Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott in 1857. Yet in the 1950s, a full century later when I was growing up, segregation still ruled and the motto of my state Democratic party was "White Supremacy for the Right." So stay calm. The party of fashionable bigotry won't desert you. Listen to the rhetoric, it's already the party of "Woman's Supremacy for the Right." You'll be able to 'put your babies in their place' (dead) for a long time. When the Supreme Court quits defending Roe v. Wade, states rights and congressional filibusters will keep abortion legal some places for perhaps as long as it did racism, lynching and segregation. Just keep in mind that this time around Washington state is likely to be one of the states that'll acquire the sort of ugly image that Mississippi acquired under racism. When you go on trips, you'll go out of your way to not mention you're from here. And if you'd like to know more about why liberals are so hot for legalized abortion, check out a book I edited, The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective. In a word, it's a nasty but once respectable ideology called eugenics. Posted by: Mike Perry at July 20, 2005 02:11 PM Question for the Leftists here: Why is having the freedom to kill an unborn child seemingly the most precious "right" to you? Posted by: Alan at July 20, 2005 03:38 PM "I grew up in a liberal household but as of the last few years have become so disenchanted with the way that liberals have come to spew such hateful generalizations at any one who disagrees with them." Actually, I think you have that backwards. Go ahead and get 'disenchanted'--you're one of the few. Posted by: Glenna at July 20, 2005 06:00 PM Why do those who are anti-abortion-rights act like *all* liberals *want* to kill embryos as if it were a sport, like hunting Bambi? Maybe if there were a genetic test to identify right-wing extremists in utero... OK, OK, I didn't really mean that! Don't shoot me, it was just a joke. But seriously, the decision to have an abortion is never easy. Every woman who has had to make that choice struggled with it on one level or another and came to the conclusion that it was the best choice under the circumstances. And no one, but no one, can or should make that decision for her. However, we're digressing again. Roe vs. Wade is not and should not be the defining issue in choosing a Supreme Court justice. There are many other equally important rights, including freedom of religion and the freedom to not have a religion at all; preserving the earth's dwindling resources so our children and grandchildren can have clean air and water and wide-open spaces; proper medical care for everyone, not just the wealthy; a decent education for everyone; and the list goes on. Will Roberts be fair and just for all Americans without being a pawn for corporate interests? That's what we should be discussing. Posted by: Catherine at July 20, 2005 06:39 PM Name calling by the right? Hummm. Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, Fienstine, Barbara Boxer, ect. have pilloried President Bush for months. The left wing politicians throw out names hoping they will stick. What it boils down to is that Judge Roberts is going to be confirmed and the leftist just hate the thought. Posted by: Michael B. Williams at July 21, 2005 08:39 AM |
|
 |
|
|||
| |
| Home | Site Map | About the P-I | Contact Us | P-I Jobs | Home Delivery | |
|  |
 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Home Delivery: (206) 464-2121 or (800) 542-0820 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com ©1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Terms of Service/Privacy Policy
| |
