Well, the biggest non-story today still seems to be the Roberts nomination. Although it seems that today even the big media outlets are running out of different ways to say the same thing. What it all boils down to is this:

1. We don't know anything about Roberts. Anything that has been pointed out is been in the context of cases which he has argued. This does not necessarily express his own personal opinions, simply the opinion he was hired to argue.

2. Senate Democrats are looking for ANYTHING that they can use to hold him up or stop him. My initial prediction was that they will try to hold him up for several years so they can screw Bush out of even one Supreme Court nomination. With all the attention that this has garnered, I don't think they'll be able to do that now. And I think they know that as well. For once in their miserable careers, it seems that the press may be working against the Democrats. Whether they want to or not, they are bringing EVERYTHING out in the open. If you remember, the first thing the deplorable Dems attempted was an attack on Roberts' wife for being part of a Christian organization (or some such nonsense), but with the negative attention that garnered almost immediately, that seems to have been dropped like a hot potato. And now the gasbag Kennedy is being all but ignored in his latest attack.

According to Kennedy, Roberts' commitment to civil rights may be questionable. Of course to bring up an accusation like that Kennedy must have evidence, right? Let's take a look.

Aides to Mr. Kennedy distributed documents from the Justice Department in the Reagan administration that show Mr. Roberts expressing criticism of an extension of the voting rights act, support for a court ruling narrowing the civil rights requirements on colleges, and doubts about a law to combat discrimination in housing.

Now I'm not familiar with the three instances stated above, but I do know that a lot of the laws that are written to help minorities tend to have the opposite effect. They keep minorities from being able to advance as they should and continue segregation whether intended or not. If those are the kinds of laws being referred to, then it's no wonder he argued against them. And even if they aren't, the things that he argued during his stint with the Regan administration reflect the views of the Regan administration and not necessarily Roberts' own views. Kennedy's attempt at using this to smear Roberts is weak at best and simply shows how desperate he is to find ANYTHING to disqualify Roberts simply because he is a Bush pick. Interestingly enough, the mainstream press seems to hold the same opinion, although they don't come right out and say it. The above story in the New York Times, which is amazingly non-partisan, and another small story on the AP wire that doesn't even go into as much detail as the NYT story are the only two that I find this morning to even mention it.

Of course Kennedy isn't the only despicable Dem attempting to hold back Roberts. According to the same NYT article, Boxer and Clinton are leading the cry to disqualify him because a) he's not a woman and b) he might take away their precious "right" to kill their children.

And of course the women aren't alone. Senator (traitor) Durbin had this to say:

WASHINGTON, July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reported today in an LA Times op-ed that Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) asked Judge John Roberts last week "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."

Which is just about the stupidest question I've EVER heard. Are you seriously trying to tell me that every judge on the bench agrees with every law on the books? Can you really say that with a straight face? If so, then why do we have dissenting opinions written on almost every decision put forth by the Supreme Court? Let me fill you in on a little secret, Durbin (and all the rest of you mamby-pamby liberals). Everyone believes something. Even if you don't have faith, you have a sense of right and wrong. And whether you want to admit it or not, all of your decisions are based on that sense of right and wrong. They HAVE to be. Where else would you get a base for making any sort of decision? By attempting to force me to accept things that go against my value system, such as abortion, you are doing the exact same thing that you are so afraid Christians are going to do to you. Do you know what the word for that is? Let's try hypocrite. That's right, you're a bunch of lying, sorry hypocrites.

And it seems that Durbin isn't alone in his thinking along these lines. According to GOPUSA, the call to ostracize Roberts for being a Catholic is going out from others as well.

Lynn Neary
National Public Radio
7-20-05
"And he is Roman Catholic, and that might affect the way he views an issue like abortion, for instance."

Barbara Walters
ABC Good Morning America
7-20-05
"John Roberts is a Roman Catholic. How important to him is his religion? Do you think it might affect him as a Supreme Court Justice?"

Miles O'Brien
CNN American Morning
7-20-05
"He's, by all accounts, a Roman Catholic who adheres to the tenets of that faith. Do you suspect that he will advocate, when the opportunity comes up, reversing some of the key aspects of Roe v Wade, which provide abortion rights in this country?"

I still don't know anything about Roberts except that judging from what little of his personal life I've been able to see he seems to be a good, faithful man who stands by his convictions. But the way things look now, I'm pretty sure he's going to get confirmed despite the smear and scare tactics of a few extremist liberals. And those same liberals are going to come out on the other side with egg on their face for even attempting their dirty tricks.

Posted by: Drew at 07:48 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1048 words, total size 6 kb.