Bush Nominates Federal Judge Roberts

[BTS]

Oh wow............ This could get interesting.

A consevative president choosing a conservative Justice.



Like I said before........................... "Let the GAMES begin" and may the best party win.



Full story here

[Clint]

BTS wrote: Oh wow............ This could get interesting.

A consevative president choosing a conservative Justice.



Like I said before........................... "Let the GAMES begin" and may the best party win.



Full story here
Why is it a surprise when a conservative President appoints a conservative Justice? I would think the shocker would be a conservative President appointing a liberal Justice.

I truly hope The Senate plays any obligatory game they need to play and then, if there isn’t a fatal character flaw discovered, they confirm the appointment. My fear is that the Ted Kennedy types will trash the President’s choice just because he’s the President’s choice. I can also see them going after him on the abortion issue which seems to be all some of them can think or talk about.

I don’t expect a game. A game would be nice. Based on the behavior of the Democrats toward other appointments by President Bush, I expect a bloody war.

[Adam Zapple]

It didn't matter who he nominated. The Democrats are ready to try and destroy anyone to the right of Ward Churchill.

It is a bit of a surprise for a Republican to nominate a conservative for SCOTUS. In another thread I posted some research I have done and Republican presidents routinely nominate moderates or liberals to SCOTUS. Of the 9 current justices, 7 were nominated by Republican presidents but only 3 of those 7 are conservative. Clinton nominated two unabashed liberals and they were easily confirmed by the Senate. The Democrats in the Senate today will not extend the same courtesy to Bush. They promised to wage war long before he even announced his nominee. It's really a shame and a disgrace to our constitution and the seperation of powers.

[Clint]

Adam Zapple wrote: The Democrats are ready to try and destroy anyone to the right of Ward Churchill..


That's funny:wah: but so true:(.

[Clint]

Check this out. Judge Roberts may not be a conservative after all.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm

[BabyRider]

IMO, this guy is a Constitutionalist. I like him, I've signed a petition to get him confirmed:



Two weeks ago, Townhall.com launched a grassroots effort to encourage President Bush to nominate someone with a rock-solid, documented judicial philosophy rooted in the Constitution's original meaning.

He did. John G. Roberts Jr. is a superbly qualified candidate who meets the highest standards of intellect, character, and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

We must now send our message to the U.S. Senate: Confirm Roberts.

Townhall.com has launched an urgent petition to take this message directly to the U.S. Senate that our nation deserves a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of. Judge Roberts is such a person.

I hope you can take a minute to join me in signing this petition to tell the U.S. Senate how we feel.

http://www.townhall.com/action/ProtectO ... tion2.html

Thanks!

[telaquapacky]

BabyRider wrote: IMO, this guy is a Constitutionalist. I like him, I've signed a petition to get him confirmed:



Two weeks ago, Townhall.com launched a grassroots effort to encourage President Bush to nominate someone with a rock-solid, documented judicial philosophy rooted in the Constitution's original meaning.

He did. John G. Roberts Jr. is a superbly qualified candidate who meets the highest standards of intellect, character, and ability, and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country.

We must now send our message to the U.S. Senate: Confirm Roberts.

Townhall.com has launched an urgent petition to take this message directly to the U.S. Senate that our nation deserves a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of. Judge Roberts is such a person.

I hope you can take a minute to join me in signing this petition to tell the U.S. Senate how we feel.

http://www.townhall.com/action/ProtectO ... tion2.html

Thanks!The Supreme Court is the only branch of government which protects the individual against government, protects the little guy against the powerful corporation. In general, the conservative ideology does the exact opposite. To truly have freedom for all, you have to have a liberal-leaning or at the very least, moderate-balanced court. Well, you can kiss that goodbye. I think conservative Americans have good intentions, but I believe this change will bring unintended consequences.

What I am watching with intense interest (and have been for over 25 years) is the fate of religious liberty in America. Religious liberty means protection of religious minorities. If the right of the minority to worship and obey God according to the dictates of their conscience (and within reason) are not protected, what's the point? The "rights" of the majority will always be protected in a democracy. Majorities often trample over the rights of minorities without even knowing they are doing it (and when religion is involved, they do it intentionally, out of intolerance and the opinion that they are right and the minority is wrong) While the Federal Court is the only branch that can protect minority rights against the majority, Conservative ideology is majoritarian in nature, and has no interest in protecting minorities.

Forget for a moment what the best selling "Bible Prophecy" novelists are saying and consider what it says in Revelation chapter 13 about the mark of the beast. It is a law, basically, which economically disadvantages some religious minority- and eventually leads to deadly persecution. What would better pave the way for the United States to fulfill the prophecy in Revelation about the second beast, from the earth (the one that follows after the 666 beast, which comes from the sea), who will impose the mark of the beast? All it takes is the elimination of all protection for religious minorities. Bush's re-election at this particular time is propitious for the fulfillment of prophecy. But not in the way that the "Christian" Right thinks:rolleyes:

I have plenty more to say on this, but I will be leaving on a ten-day trip. If you want a deeper explanation, you'll have to wait.

If current events continue as they have, to go like clockwork according to my understanding of prophecy, I have reason both to dread the nomination of a conservative, and relish it. On one hand, my goose is cooked! (because I don't plan to go along with the mark of the beast, and I expect to suffer the earthly consequences) - on the other hand, IMHO it means the happy end is just around the corner. Happy, that is, for those who make the right choices.

[Adam Zapple]

The Supreme Court is the only branch of government which protects the individual against government, protects the little guy against the powerful corporation. In general, the conservative ideology does the exact opposite. To truly have freedom for all, you have to have a liberal-leaning or at the very least, moderate-balanced court


Really? Ever heard of Kelo? You know, the eminent domain case where this liberal-leaning court took private property from individuals, including an 80yr old woman who had never lived anywhere else, and handed it to commercial developers?

Clint, we really don't know if Roberts will turn out to be conservative, moderate, or liberal. But he is Bush's choice, he is qualified to sit on SCOTUS, therefore should be confirmed. I remember when Ted Kennedy and other Democrats were blasting David Souter for being a right-wing ideologue. Look how he turned out. The Democrats are playing politics. They know Roberts is highly qualified, they just do not want to hand Bush any kind of victory without scoring some ideological points, and perhaps destroying a few peoples character in the process.

[telaquapacky]

Adam Zapple wrote: Really? Ever heard of Kelo? You know, the eminent domain case where this liberal-leaning court took private property from individuals, including an 80yr old woman who had never lived anywhere else, and handed it to commercial developers?Ya got me there. That case was an exception to the rule that made my jaw drop. Unintended consequences (and collateral damage) are not only the product of conservativism.

[Accountable]

telaquapacky wrote: The Supreme Court is the only branch of government which protects the individual against government, protects the little guy against the powerful corporation. In general, the conservative ideology does the exact opposite. To truly have freedom for all, you have to have a liberal-leaning or at the very least, moderate-balanced court. Well, you can kiss that goodbye. I think conservative Americans have good intentions, but I believe this change will bring unintended consequences.



What I am watching with intense interest (and have been for over 25 years) is the fate of religious liberty in America. Religious liberty means protection of religious minorities.
Excuse me? What minority are liberals protecting? Seems to me they want to eradicate Judeo-Christian religion from American society.



[...]

I have plenty more to say on this, but I will be leaving on a ten-day trip. If you want a deeper explanation, you'll have to wait.
Please don't forget to come back to this. I, for one, am waiting.

[Clint]

Adam Zapple wrote:

Clint, we really don't know if Roberts will turn out to be conservative, moderate, or liberal. But he is Bush's choice, he is qualified to sit on SCOTUS, therefore should be confirmed. I remember when Ted Kennedy and other Democrats were blasting David Souter for being a right-wing ideologue. Look how he turned out. The Democrats are playing politics. They know Roberts is highly qualified, they just do not want to hand Bush any kind of victory without scoring some ideological points, and perhaps destroying a few peoples character in the process.
I don’t have a problem with Roberts at this point. I thought it interesting that there was some doubt about him being conservative. I agree that the President has the right to appoint his choice. I also remember that his promise to appoint constructionists was one of the main reasons I voted for him along with many others. My real hope is that there will be enough vacancies in the next three years to once again interpret the constitution and stop legislating. If separation of power isn’t restored soon we are going to be in deeper mess than we already are.

The Democrats in Congress have been behaving like sore losers. They need to get a grip and start doing what’s best for the country. That’s really the only way they will every get back into power.

[greydeadhead]

Hell.. he could have appointed Mother Teresa and the Dems would have pounded the war drums and danced. Point being that no matter who W appointed the Dems were not gonna be happy. Leahy himself pointed out that whoever the candidate nominated was, they were going to be scutinized intensely.. soooo.. let the debate begin...

[Adam Zapple]

Wait until Rhenquist retires and Bush appoints Janice Rogers Brown as Chief Justice.

That would be a hoot! Bush would be DA MAN!!! :yh_rotfl :yh_worshp

The Democrats would have a coronary. :yh_rotfl

[telaquapacky]

Accountable wrote: Excuse me? What minority are liberals protecting? Seems to me they want to eradicate Judeo-Christian religion from American society.It's a common misconception that the conservatives are always for God's people and the liberals always against. What minority have the liberals been protecting? I don't know. The moderates have been protecting me. Up to now the greatest threat to my religious freedom has come from the right, and will for the forseeable future. But we have enemies in the ACLU also. I don't really look for help from either side.

[Accountable]

telaquapacky wrote: It's a common misconception that the conservatives are always for God's people and the liberals always against. What minority have the liberals been protecting? I don't know. The moderates have been protecting me. Up to now the greatest threat to my religious freedom has come from the right, and will for the forseeable future. But we have enemies in the ACLU also. I don't really look for help from either side.
Forgive me, but I'm not clear what you mean by "moderates have been protecting me." You apparently view yourself as in a different group from most American religions. I'd be happy to research your previous posts if I must, but I would appreciate your clarification here.



Who is the "we" you refer to?

[telaquapacky]

Accountable wrote: Forgive me, but I'm not clear what you mean by "moderates have been protecting me." You apparently view yourself as in a different group from most American religions. I'd be happy to research your previous posts if I must, but I would appreciate your clarification here.



Who is the "we" you refer to?I am a Seventh-day Adventist. We are the most active of any religious organization in the United States lobbying for religious liberty. What makes us different is that we keep the Seventh-day Sabbath holy according to the fourth commandment. The Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the Church of Rome many centuries ago. Because of religious prejudice against the Jews and plain old habit, the reformers failed to restore to Christianity the practice of Sabbathkeeping which was observed by the churches started by the Apostles. There are quite a number of Christian groups and denominations that keep the Seventh-day Sabbath, but counted together they are a minority.

The Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday and ends at sundown on Saturday. (Sunday is not the Sabbath, and there is no command in Scripture to honor it) If you are a Sabbath-keeper, during the winter months sunset may come at 4:00. Many employers frown on people asking to leave work at 4:00 on Friday from November to February. Some will not permit workers to trade shifts with their Sunday-keeping co-workers when their work involves Saturday. We used to be able to defend our jobs by making reasonable accommodations, and if an employer was stubborn and uncooperative, we could take it to court on the grounds of protection of religious liberty (that used to be) guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But it is getting harder and harder, because the hard-core conservatives on the Supreme Court fight any attempt to protect the religious freedoms of individuals. Scalia in particular bases his opinions on the principle that if someone keeps the Sabbath in a Sundaykeeping society, they are creating an inconvience and a burden that government has no obligation to protect. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are vocal in their opposition to separation of Church and State. Scalia and Thomas are Roman Catholic. Pope JP II in his encyclical, "Dies Domini" called for all Roman Catholics to lobby for laws that enforce the "sanctity" of Sunday. Those laws discriminate against us who keep the fourth commandment.

[Accountable]

telaquapacky wrote: I am a Seventh-day Adventist. We are the most active of any religious organization in the United States lobbying for religious liberty. What makes us different is that we keep the Seventh-day Sabbath holy according to the fourth commandment. The Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the Church of Rome many centuries ago. Because of religious prejudice against the Jews and plain old habit, the reformers failed to restore to Christianity the practice of Sabbathkeeping which was observed by the churches started by the Apostles. There are quite a number of Christian groups and denominations that keep the Seventh-day Sabbath, but counted together they are a minority.
Okay. I understand where you're coming from.



telaquapacky wrote: The Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday and ends at sundown on Saturday. (Sunday is not the Sabbath, and there is no command in Scripture to honor it) If you are a Sabbath-keeper, during the winter months sunset may come at 4:00. Many employers frown on people asking to leave work at 4:00 on Friday from November to February. Some will not permit workers to trade shifts with their Sunday-keeping co-workers when their work involves Saturday. We used to be able to defend our jobs by making reasonable accommodations, and if an employer was stubborn and uncooperative, we could take it to court on the grounds of protection of religious liberty (that used to be) guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But it is getting harder and harder, because the hard-core conservatives on the Supreme Court fight any attempt to protect the religious freedoms of individuals. Scalia in particular bases his opinions on the principle that if someone keeps the Sabbath in a Sundaykeeping society, they are creating an inconvience and a burden that government has no obligation to protect. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are vocal in their opposition to separation of Church and State. Scalia and Thomas are Roman Catholic. Pope JP II in his encyclical, "Dies Domini" called for all Roman Catholics to lobby for laws that enforce the "sanctity" of Sunday. Those laws discriminate against us who keep the fourth commandment.
See, here's where you and I part ways. There is no commandment or constitutional article that says the owner of a private enterprise has to honor anything the employee holds holy. If an employer and employee have a disagreement on when to take off from work, they must either work it out or the employee must walk. If SDA (I hope that doesn't offend) people, for instance, want a business to open and close on the dictates of the fourth Commandment, they should pool their 90% after-tithe money and open one.

[telaquapacky]

Accountable wrote: Okay. I understand where you're coming from.



See, here's where you and I part ways. There is no commandment or constitutional article that says the owner of a private enterprise has to honor anything the employee holds holy. If an employer and employee have a disagreement on when to take off from work, they must either work it out or the employee must walk. If SDA (I hope that doesn't offend) people, for instance, want a business to open and close on the dictates of the fourth Commandment, they should pool their 90% after-tithe money and open one.Actually, I'm with you. I lost my last job over it, and I just bought my own business. But not everyone can do this. I am not in favor of Sabbath-keepers making themselves a nuisance in the workplace, or worse yet, suing people to honor their own religious convictions. But one thing that concerns me is when an employee is willing and able to make a reasonable accomodation, for example, by swapping hours with another employee who does the same work, but the employer or supervisor refuses for no reason other than "Don't tell me how to run my business." I've had to pay unemployment compensation to former workers- who resigned yet- for less honorable reasons than their religious convictions.

I have a bigger burden for Sunday Laws. I agree with you that there is no commandment or constitutional article that says the owner of a private enterprise has to honor anything the employee holds holy. Yet, if we understand the first amendment where Congress shall make no law that establishes a national religion, clearly the government has no business making laws that favor Sundaykeeping over any other day.

[Accountable]

telaquapacky wrote: I have a bigger burden for Sunday Laws. I agree with you that there is no commandment or constitutional article that says the owner of a private enterprise has to honor anything the employee holds holy. Yet, if we understand the first amendment where Congress shall make no law that establishes a national religion, clearly the government has no business making laws that favor Sundaykeeping over any other day.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Any law regarding religion, pro or con, is prohibited. We agree.



Do I understand your opinion right, that the Republicans are doing more harm to this than the Democrats because they favor Sunday-worshipping sects?

[Accountable]

Far Rider wrote: If he had the conviction to not work on a religeous day he should have come to me and been honest up front and quit. I would have understood, and given him a weeks pay which is my normal practice when some one quits.



venting, sorry if this is slightly off topic...
Not at all. I think we highjacked it already, but the original subject has gone to another thread anyway.



Yes, I would expect a religious person to be honest about it.

[telaquapacky]

Far Rider wrote: If he had the conviction to not work on a religeous day he should have come to me and been honest up front and quit. I would have understood, and given him a weeks pay which is my normal practice when some one quits.Sorry to hear it, Rider! There's a bad apple in every bunch- and it really gives religious freedom a bad name and a black eye. Personnel problems are bad enough without people using religious excuses. Since becoming a Sabbath-keeper (Saturday rather than Sunday) I never interviewed for a job without telling them explicitly what hours I could work. My last employer agreed at first, but later changed his mind. Taking Saturday off is more challenging than Sunday, because Saturday is the biggest business day. I probably lose a lot of money, but since it's my business, it's my prerogative.

[telaquapacky]

Accountable wrote: Any law regarding religion, pro or con, is prohibited. We agree.



Do I understand your opinion right, that the Republicans are doing more harm to this than the Democrats because they favor Sunday-worshipping sects?Republicans owe a lot to the Christian right. It's not going to be a premeditated thing. All it takes is another 9-11 (and the next one will probably be worse) and people will clamor for legislation that "brings America back to God." (and helps smoke out religious extremists who are not Christian, to use careful words). The big dragnet will be too big, and some innocent people will be caught in it. As I said, there are always unintended consequences. But Democrat or Republican, it doesn't really matter. Republicans happen to be in power at the moment, and have these big connections to the evangelicals, who at this moment are on the war path against separation of church and state, and indirectly and perhaps unintendedly, against religious liberty.

[Accountable]

It's a sad fact that too many people believe that religious liberty is only for "my" religion - since all the other are wrong anyway. *we need sarcastic smileys*



There's a great book about the law of unentended consequences, Gimme a Break by John Stossel. It's a quick read and well worth it.

[telaquapacky]

Accountable wrote: It's a sad fact that too many people believe that religious liberty is only for "my" religion - since all the other are wrong anyway. *we need sarcastic smileys*



There's a great book about the law of unentended consequences, Gimme a Break by John Stossel. It's a quick read and well worth it.Big amen to that, brother. That's the forgotten truth about our freedoms. If we don't protect the freedom of those who disagree with us, our own freedoms may be next on the chopping block. My denomination has a legal department funded by our offerings that has defended the religious freedoms of individuals of many different faiths, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Native American, etc.- in many cases we have provided attorneys at no charge. We won for Amish in one state back east the right to have drivers' licenses (which they needed for their horse drawn carts because they used public roadways) without their photographs. We, though we are opposed to use of any illegal drugs, and don't drink or smoke,- provided counsel in an attempt to help a couple of Native Americans who were denied unemployment compensation because they used Peyote in their religious rituals (we sort of overdid it there, and it backfired on us bigtime- unintended consequences).

We publish Liberty Magazine, which is the leading publication on Religious Liberty. Some good articles are always available to read on their website.

Stossel's book sounds interesting. I think another take on unintended consequences is the proverb, "No good deed will go unpunished."

[BTS]

Accountable wrote: Not at all. I think we highjacked it already, but the original subject has gone to another thread anyway.



Yes, I would expect a religious person to be honest about it.


Accountable wrote:

"but the original subject has gone to another thread anyway."


Maybe it has ....Accountable.....maybe not.......... for like I said let the games begin.

Just wanted to update the situation.

In my opinion the Democrats have been searching from dusk till dusk to discredit him

SOOOOO let's see what goods they gots so far.





Ad Campaign Says Roberts Backed Violent Protesters





By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Page A03

http://themoderatevoice.com/posts/chain ... 1262.shtml





OOOPSIE they pulled that one............. Proved to be ALL lies (before they ran it)









Now we are here............... (sorry...........gotta laugh)



Politics Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2005 Leahy Lambastes Roberts' 'Radical' Stands

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Patrick Leahy, who will lead theDemocratic questioning at John Roberts' confirmation hearings,criticized the Supreme Court nominee Tuesday as an ``eager,aggressive advocate'' for policies of the Republican far rightwing.



One day after the release of 5,000 pages of Reagan-era records,the Vermont Democrat said in a statement that Roberts' views were``among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent onreversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights,women's rights, privacy and access to justice.''

Leahy stopped short of announcing his opposition to theappointment, in keeping with a call from Senate Minority LeaderHarry Reid for the rank and file to wait for confirmation hearingsbefore making decisions. But his statement was by far the mostcritical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts to thehigh court, and among the most scathing by any Democrat.

Steve Schmidt, a White House spokesman, said Leahy's commentsreflected a Democratic strategy - predating Roberts' nomination -of trying to depict Bush's nominee as ideologically extreme.



``The ease with which Sen. Leahy distorts Judge Roberts' recordis troubling and may indicate that the Democrats are not yet donetrying to make that argument, although it has already beendiscredited,'' Schmidt said.

Leahy and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., both expressedconcern about documents that were not released on Monday, askingfor investigations into a few that were reported missing.

Nearly 500 were kept private in their entirety on grounds ofnational security or privacy, according to Allen Weinstein, head ofthe National Archives and Records Administration. Leahy asked thatportions of those be made public, as appropriate.



Additionally, a folder of material relating to affirmativeaction was misplaced by library officials after being reviewed byadministration officials, Weinstein wrote. He said he believed thematerial had been reconstructed without the originals and madepublic. Both Leahy and Kennedy asked for investigations.

Leahy spoke out on Roberts as several officials said People Forthe American Way, a prominent civil rights group, is likely toannounce its opposition to his confirmation by the end of nextweek.



These officials said the announcement could mark the beginningof a string of such declarations from other organizations,including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and theAlliance for Justice. They spoke on condition of anonymity, notingthat formal decisions have not yet been made.

Other groups gave indications of following.



Joe Solmonese, president of Human Rights Campaign, says theorganization leaders were ``still evaluating his record and havenot made a formal decision. But obviously every day our concernscontinue to grow about him and his candidacy.''



Ralph Neas, president of People For The American Way, declinedto comment on his own organization's plans. However, he said a``significant number of progressive organizations will soon becoming out against the Roberts nomination.''

At the same time, Neas prodded Senate Democrats in public andprivate to outline the stakes involved in Roberts' appointment.Bush named Roberts to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor,who was often a swing vote on issues such as affirmative action andabortion.



In a private meeting with Senate Democratic aides, Neas saidangrily that the public was being left with the impression thatRoberts' confirmation proceedings were a mere formality, accordingto several participants.

For his part, Reid, D-Nev., seemed eager to rebut any suchsuggestion. ``All this talk about whether Democrats will supportthe Roberts nomination is laughably premature. The hearings have not even begun.''

Kennedy also urged fellow Democrats to avoid making a decisionon their vote until after the Senate Judiciary Committeeconfirmation hearings, set to begin Sept. 6.



``I can tell you from having gone through 20 Supreme Courtnominations - and hundreds of other contested nominations - thatthe process is frequently slow, and, not surprisingly, that themost important information - one way or the other - is frequentlynot discovered or understood until a late stage,'' he wrote.



In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorneyserving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in linewith those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer inpublic schools, dismissive of ``comparable worth,'' referred to the``tragedy of abortion'' and took a swipe at the Supreme Court forbeing too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.



``Those papers that we have paint a picture of John Roberts asan eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tingedwith the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then andnow,'' Leahy said in his statement.

He also pressed the Democrats' prior demand for records fromRoberts' time as principal deputy solicitor general during theadministration of President George H.W. Bush. The White House hasrefused to make those papers available, and Leahy wrote that indoing so, ``they raise the inference that there is much to hide.''



On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov



Senate Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.senate.gov/



U.S. National Archives and Records Administration:http://www.archives.gov/

[Accountable]

Happy to bring the thread back on point BTS. The point that kills me is that everybody I've seen on the news agrees that Roberts will be confirmed anyway. If so, what's the point in the mudslinging?

[BTS]

And

[BTS]

QUOTE Accountable

"The point that kills me is that everybody I've seen on the news agrees that Roberts will be confirmed anyway. If so, what's the point in the mudslinging?"











I dunno what the point is Accountable but it is going to get really REALLY ugly before it is all cut and dri......





Roberts Is Opposed by Group That Helped Defeat Bork (Update1)



"We've got to Bork Roberts!"

Protesters sweat it out in the sweltering Manhattan heat to take their first stand against Bush's Supreme Court nominee.





PFAW's Report on Roberts