39D. QUESTIONNAIRE ESPOSING ROBERTS AS WOLF
One of the most common excuses I've heard for people who want to close their eyes and pretend Judge John Roberts might be truly conservative is, "Well, we really won't know for sure his positions until he starts answering their questions and ruling on things. He may have said a few pro-choice type comments to appease the liberals, but when he's questioned and appointed, then we'll see where he stands NOW."
It's almost like they are hoping he lied to fool the liberals, but (wink, wink), he's really on our side - we hope.
NOPE. The first round of questioning came in, in the form of a 67 page questionnaire, and Roberts reiterated EXACTLY what I claimed in the first place. He is NOT a conservative at all. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the clothing fits so badly I can't believe how intelligent people can't see the wolf underneath unless they were willingly ignorant.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/4801511/detail.html
Roberts Says He'll Respect Settled Law
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is pledging to respect settled law if confirmed. Roberts said precedent is important in "promoting the stability of the legal system." The comments were part of a questionnaire Roberts filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee released about 100 pages of his responses on Tuesday.
He even used the SAME TERM he used when he said earlier that Roe vs. Wade was the "SETTLED law of the land". Does he have to actually kill the babies himself before the Bush-bots will believe he's not conservative?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts-wealth_x.htm
In the questionnaire, Roberts wrote, "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges."
IOW, he admittedly does support ruling from the bench and is not a "strict constitutionalist". No matter how many times Bush and his robots parrot the line that Roberts is a "strict constitutionalist", they are lying.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts_x.htm
"They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," Roberts stated.
Well, many of those decisions Roberts insists he'll respect as "settled law" were rendered to solve a supposed societal problem - Roe vs. Wade being the prominent example!
If both our "conservative Republican Christian" President, and his first Supreme Court judicial nominee say that they will do nothing to even attempt to quell abortion ("America is not ready", "It's not my job", or whatever excuse), who will? They are the LEADERS. If they won't turn the country toward righteousness, why should a Christian support them? What difference does it make if we have a "conservative Republican Christian" who does nothing to stop abortion, or a liberal Democrat feminist (Hillary?) who won't stop abortion (but at least agrees it's a tragic thing)?
It's almost like they are hoping he lied to fool the liberals, but (wink, wink), he's really on our side - we hope.
NOPE. The first round of questioning came in, in the form of a 67 page questionnaire, and Roberts reiterated EXACTLY what I claimed in the first place. He is NOT a conservative at all. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and the clothing fits so badly I can't believe how intelligent people can't see the wolf underneath unless they were willingly ignorant.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/4801511/detail.html
Roberts Says He'll Respect Settled Law
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is pledging to respect settled law if confirmed. Roberts said precedent is important in "promoting the stability of the legal system." The comments were part of a questionnaire Roberts filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee released about 100 pages of his responses on Tuesday.
He even used the SAME TERM he used when he said earlier that Roe vs. Wade was the "SETTLED law of the land". Does he have to actually kill the babies himself before the Bush-bots will believe he's not conservative?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts-wealth_x.htm
In the questionnaire, Roberts wrote, "A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges."
IOW, he admittedly does support ruling from the bench and is not a "strict constitutionalist". No matter how many times Bush and his robots parrot the line that Roberts is a "strict constitutionalist", they are lying.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-02-roberts_x.htm
"They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law," Roberts stated.
Well, many of those decisions Roberts insists he'll respect as "settled law" were rendered to solve a supposed societal problem - Roe vs. Wade being the prominent example!
If both our "conservative Republican Christian" President, and his first Supreme Court judicial nominee say that they will do nothing to even attempt to quell abortion ("America is not ready", "It's not my job", or whatever excuse), who will? They are the LEADERS. If they won't turn the country toward righteousness, why should a Christian support them? What difference does it make if we have a "conservative Republican Christian" who does nothing to stop abortion, or a liberal Democrat feminist (Hillary?) who won't stop abortion (but at least agrees it's a tragic thing)?
posted by T.G. at 2:13 PM
<< Home