Statement of the Center for American Progress
Statement of the Center for American Progress
On the Nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court of the United States
The President has chosen a nominee. The Senate must now decide not only whether he has the intellect, character and integrity to serve on the highest court in the land, but whether he will be fair, impartial and independent in the administration of justice, and whether he is committed to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms for all of our people. The Senate can carry out this responsibility only by conducting a thorough and searching inquiry into the nominee’s views of the Constitution and the judicial process. Only through such an inquiry can senators determine whether he harbors ideological preconceptions that place him outside the constitutional mainstream and would make it difficult for him to follow precedent or consider with an open mind each case that comes before him.
Having spent most of his career representing private clients and the government, Judge Roberts has served for only a brief period on the federal bench. It is too early to form a definitive judgment on how he would approach his responsibilities if confirmed. But the Senate should examine with care his writings and the many matters in which he represented the government–including a controversial brief in which he argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. The country has a right to know–and he deserves an opportunity to explain–whether the brief represented his personal views and whether it reflects his views today.
Supreme Court justices serve for a lifetime. The Senate must make sure it has all of the facts before giving its consent.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Here, here. Well stated.
July 19th, 2005 at 9:26 pmThe question is: Can he goose step?
July 19th, 2005 at 9:27 pmincompetence, inexperience, willingness to toe the party line: a perfect choice from our Bushie.
July 19th, 2005 at 9:46 pmJust a lump of clay that can be molded.Perfect.
July 19th, 2005 at 9:55 pmNow that we know the Bush’s pick is John Roberts, Democrats should not reflexively oppose the choice.
Three considerations for liberals and progressives of all stripes:
1. Anti-Choice History Alone is Not Sufficient for a No Vote
2. Partisan Political Past is Sufficient Grounds for Opposition
3. Look for a Clear Record of Judicial, Philosophical Extremism
Using those filters, Democrats should not mount a campaign to oppose Roberts. They should hold their fire for a more extreme choice when Rehnquist steps down.
For more background, see:
“Supreme Limitations: Considerations for Democrats “
July 19th, 2005 at 10:09 pmI am sure that I am naive in this area but it has been my understanding for a significant number of years that the Constitution of the United States, with amendments, has been accepted by the people of this country as our standand. It also has been my perception that the purpose of the Supreme Court is to weigh the laws of this country vis-a-vis that Constitution to determine the validity of the LAW, not the validity of the Constitution. There is no doubt that the Supreme Court did its thing and decided Roe vs. Wade. It is a done deal! I’m sorry if you don’t agree but the law is Constitutional! End of debate, end of story. Should Bush and his right wingnuts be allowed to follow the same procedure with every issue of the Supreme Court with which they disagree as they did with the last three elections? That is “Just keep counting till we win!” I think not. Any Supreme Court Justice who votes to reconsider Roe vs. Wade, or any other past decision of the Court, for that matter, should be IMMEDIATELY removed from office for cause. If Bush and company are so set against Roe vs. Wade they can follow the steps in the Constitution that allows for such a contingency. All they have to do is write an amendment to the Constitution denying a Woman’s Right to Choose. When that is done and ratified by the States then they can argue the Constitutionality of their own law. There will be no need to illegally stuff the Supreme Court with unfit justices.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:47 pmRoberts is a scumbag, and we should all be incensed by his nomination. Of course, that’s precisely what Bush wanted. So I feel I must remind all:
Rove. Rove. Rove.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:52 pm-Robert’s is too young.
-Democrats should let him through and stay focused on CIA leak.
-Roe v. Wade is legislating from bench.
-The court that overturns Roe better hope the troops are available for martial law and Gov’t collapse.
-Email congress about CIA leak.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:05 pm“the constitutional mainstream ”
July 19th, 2005 at 11:26 pmWhere is that in the constitution? You know that document you guys think is not as important as say, your opinion, I don’t think it comes with a stream, main or otherwise. Look at it this way, you can always filibuster…wait, that’s right, you can’t, better get to killing babies, those days are numbered. Maybe after it’s illegal to vacuum babies to mush you could just drown them in your “mainstream.”
Liberals are such bigots when it comes to different ideas. There is nothing to fear about different ideas. Diversity is wonderful thing and a court with judges with difference of opinions is a good thing.
Furthermore there is no such thing as an “extremist” judge. That’s just make believe partisan balderdash to fool the sheep of whichever side to abhor whatever fine jurist is up for the post.
Get over yourselves Liberals and learn to embrace people have different opinions from your own. Practice tolerance, not bigotry.
John G. Roberts will be confirmed.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:29 pmOK bigot.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:33 pmWell said, but let’s not be deterred. This administration had lied repeatedly. Hold them accountable. Don’t give them appointnment # 2! Impeach these criminals. OUR MARCH TO FREEDOM DEPENDS ON iT! Sing it out! Sing it out! Sing it out! Sing it LOUD AND CLEAR!
July 19th, 2005 at 11:41 pmWell said Don Davis. Thanks!
July 19th, 2005 at 11:43 pmto “fake but accurate”….what? “Mainstream” is an ETHICAL (You wouldn’t understand)interpretation of the intent of the LAW. In other words, YES, it COMES with a stream. Reasonable people interpreting the will of society (not societal extremists. Have you read Aristotolean and Spinazoan ethics? Until you do…..please don’t ask us to respond to your drivel.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:48 pmThis Mr. Roberts is Catholic and he will be forced by the Catholic people and the new Pope Clement and will have to reverse Roe V Roe one way or the other….but, the Catholic Church will insist on this….they would not even give Catholics Communion who were in agreement with Roe V Roe.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:58 pmSo I feel he definitely would allow his Religious Belief to
infringe on his judgement thereby he is no good for the job of U.S. Supreme Court….
Haha, if thinkparanoid thought it was bad, it’s just going to get worse now. I don’t know how your going to cope. Lashing out hysterically at things you can’t control (you lost in 2004, remember?) is better than trying to understand that everyone doesn’t think like you. The rules say you get to try again in 2008. Bush isn’t running so I suggest so-called progressives come up with a plan other than dwelling on hate and contempt for the greatest nation on earth.
I’m happy with this place regardless of it’s imperfections. I think I can guess who’s not………skidmark.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:00 amSir Robin,
Would you consider Ginsberg a mainstream choice? Someone associated with the ACLU? How about Breyer? Clinton made those appointments shortly after getting into office and they were confirmed because they appeared qualified and up for the job. I saw plenty of democrats give Roberts praise tonight so they obviously feel he is qualified. Since when does the president have to nominate someone that the left will be happy with? I don’t get it. Roberts will be confirmed with 90+ votes.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:02 amskid,
how am i a bigot? i’m not afraid of this man’s ideas, just like i’m not afraid of ruth bader ginsberg’s ideas.
trying to force the supreme court into some kind of permanent 5-4 court or into some kind or “constitutional mainstream” orthodoxy is puritanical. no group has a monopoly on ideas and it will be a dark day in american history whenver the u.s. supreme court is government by one way of thinking. pluralism and diversity are wonderful and this man, John G. Roberts, is neither beast or fool.
embrace differences of opinions Liberals.
e pluribus unum baby!!!
July 20th, 2005 at 12:12 amfab, Lyle, Steed, Ed,
Gentlemen, it may come as a surprise to you, but not all of us hold your collective opinion, repeat opinion. Rather than belittle yourselves by resorting to childish name calling please educate us inferior mortals. I admitted to my naivety. If I am so out of touch with reality please educate me. Offer some logical reasonable facts, again not opinions, to prove me wrong. It is my position that the Supreme Court is obligated to rule on laws that have not heretofore been questioned and ruled on before at some time. Their function is not to rehash the past at every changing of the guard. If I am in error please cite the applicable paragraphs from the Constitution which state that any President gets to decide what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional by his nominee for Justice. What is done is done and can only be changed by changing the Constitution. Anything else is tyranny. I challenge you to PROVE me wrong by reference to the very Constitution you wish to discard.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:28 amAristotolean and Spinazoan Comment by Sir Robin
And they are mentioned in the constitution where? You people want to change the constitution without amending it, and now, hopefully, we will have another Justice, like Thomas who reads it for what it says, not what he or she thinks it should say, or what “international law” says. “the intent of law” What crap. So You’re a knight? I’m impressed. No really.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:30 amMy Grandchildren- and theirs, and theirs and theirs, ad in finitum, are my concern. Stay on point! Health, Environment, Happiness, Justice, Economy, Sustainability, Enlightenment, Education (maybe should be 1st in this list!), Truth, Integrity, Unity,Family, Tolerance,
Justice and Respect….
July 20th, 2005 at 12:50 amgotta agree with you lyle in some respects, and strongly disagree on others. roberts will most likely be confirmed. the senate hearings will decide that, along with influence constituents have on their senators in august. a large percentage of america is skeptical of the administration, and it doesn’t take much to see the nomination as a distraction from potentially devastating scandal; congress doesn’t resume for weeks and o’connor said she’d gladly serve until somebody is confirmed, there is no need for an urgent nominee other than distraction.
furthermore, your use of liberal is inaccurate in context. this is not a liberal/consertive issue. the past decade has redefined those labels. democratic people believe in keeping government out of their lives and spending kept to a minimum. republican people believe that the government should dictate what people do in private and that ballooning spending is par for the course. true conservatives might want to start party shopping.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:50 amToo right, Nicholas.
The Republican party has long since been hijacked by an entirely new breed of ideologues dressed up in conservative clothing. But it is merely a window dressing, since fiscal responsibility, state’s rights amd smaller federal government – all which used to be trademarks of conservatism – have been thoroughly tossed out the window.
But back to the topic at hand, despite the shrill cries of the usual gaggle of pseudocons that frequent this forum, I see nothing wrong with TP’s statement above. If anyone has a problem with the notion that “it is too early to form a definitive judgment on how he [Roberts] would approach his responsibilities if confirmed” or with the concept that “the Senate must make sure it has all of the facts before giving its consent”, then I would love to hear the criticism.
An interesting aside is that Bush saw fit to replace a woman Justice with a man, leaving only one woman on the bench. I can only think that this speaks volumes to the Bushian concept of “representative” government, seeing as how over 50% of the female population of the United States may end up being represented by a scant 11% of the nation’s highest court.
Because when it comes to a controversial issue like abortion, of course men would have a far better understanding…
Sarcasm off.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:23 amfake but accurate -
I didn’t think that this was even possible – until now, that is – but, uh… your blog sucks even more than mine does.
Well done.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:54 amnicholas,
i don’t disagree with your narrow definition of liberal and conservative, but i was using the term in the broad sense, specifically meaning those liberals who can only say negative things about Bush or Republicans. they don’t realize they’re puritanical in their worldview. partisan republicans can be just as bad, but they’re in power so much saner than the out of power democrats.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:28 amdon,
you’re right, no where in the constitution does it say who gets to say what is or isn’t constitutional, but in 1803 John Marshall laid down the notion that it must be up to the Supreme Court to say what is constitutional or what is not. we’ve followed Marbury vs. Madison ever since and we won’t be changing course now.
you’re argument simply isn’t respected by anybody since the law on judicial review is well established after 200 years of independence.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:35 amOT, but that’s the point. Nice blog btw, Econ.
Rove is Toast. Say Good-bye, Karl.
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10016
An Unlikely Story
Karl Rove’s alibi would be easier to believe if he hadn’t hidden it from FBI investigators in 2003.
By Murray Waas
Web Exclusive: 07.19.05
White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed CIA officer Valerie Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper during Rove’s first interview with the FBI, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter.
The omission by Rove created doubt for federal investigators, almost from the inception of their criminal probe into who leaked Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak, as to whether Rove was withholding crucial information from them, and perhaps even misleading or lying to them, the sources said.
Also leading to the early skepticism of Rove’s accounts was the claim that although he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from a journalist, he said could not recall the name of the journalist. Later, the sources said, Rove wavered even further, saying he was not sure at all where he first heard the information.
Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, has said that Rove never knew that Plame was a covert officer when he discussed her CIA employment with reporters, and that he only first learned of her clandestine status when he read about it in the newspaper. Luskin did not return a telephone call today seeking comment for this story.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:15 amDon is right. Lyle hasn’t got a clue.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:26 amLook at the Constitution closely. It is one of the most vague and ambiguous legal documents you will ever find. It as far from precise and explicit on many issues and points, by design. Look at the writings of each of the individual framers. Were these men who could not craft documents and papers of explicit precision and fine meaning? All of them were. Ask yourself why, then, is our Constitution so vague and ambiguous. A cigar for the first one to come up with the answer. A Cuban cigar. Don’t listen to “Federalists” or the wannabe idiots who prattle on here carrying their water. The Federalist Society is John Birch in a cloak of respectability. They have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of much of this country for long enough and we will be saddled with a SCOTUS that demeans and negates the original intent of the framers for some time, but it has to stop or we will be stuck with a Constitutional Taliban.
Final passage
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
Original Passage:
July 20th, 2005 at 5:42 am“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
That was Thomas Jefferson. You can see two separate versions because he was very careful about crafting his precise meaning. He hated judges, BTW. And as one of you pointed out, John Marshall got the better of Jefferson and Madison in 1803. Justice Marshall was a judicial activist! And since then, the SCOTUS interprets the constitution. This can work for or against you, but it’s the way it is. No wonder radcons don’t like it. They’d like it fine if there were conservative “judicial activists” on the court. They are whiney little hypocrites. Damn, I wish they would all just dissappear.
July 20th, 2005 at 5:51 am“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
 Chief Justice John Marshall
July 20th, 2005 at 5:54 amLooks like liberals will have their hands full trying to smear two of Bush’s guys. Good luck – you’ll need it. Leaky Leahy and Schumer are no match for the GOP. Interesting how old and out of touch liberal Democratic senators are. The tide is changing and you people are getting swept away.
July 20th, 2005 at 7:16 amThinkProgress writes:
“It is too early to form a definitive judgment on how he [John G. Roberts, Jr.] would approach his responsibilities if confirmed.”
While I usually agree with ThinkProgress, we part company on this matter.
Here’s why.
Federal Appeals judge John G. Roberts Jr., who while serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the Reagan administration wrote, “Roe (referring to Roe v. Wade) was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
That’s good enough for me. Roberts should be filibustered away — he’s too conservative to be confirmed.
. . .
July 20th, 2005 at 8:39 amThe stampede of the pseudo-cons continues…
partisan republicans can be just as bad, but they’re in power so much saner than the out of power democrats.
Basis for opinion? Nonoe provided.
you’re argument simply isn’t respected by anybody since the law on judicial review is well established after 200 years of independence.
Basis for sweeping generalization? None provided.
Looks like liberals will have their hands full trying to smear two of Bush’s guys.
Basis for criticism? None provided.
The tide is changing and you people are getting swept away.
Basis for opinion? You get the idea…
As always, it will be fascinating to find these folks posting anything of real substance. Purely from a structural standpoint, a relevant argument is made by stating a hypothesis, citing factual evidence and then drawing a conclusion based upon the data. Such as with this post:
Hypothesis: Conservatives posting on this board rarely make valid arguments or points.
Data: Four excerpts from posts above.
Conclusion: Opinions offered without any supporting evidence do not constitute a valid argument.
Yet all these pseudocons seem capable of doing is tossing out baseless opinions or baiting others who are trying to make valid points with taunts and invectives.
The time for rhetoric is over. The time for reason is now.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:02 amJohn S – you are smearing Karl Rove on this site. He hasn’t been convicted of any crime yet you continue to blather on about what a thug he is. And in fairness, no one has really gone after Roberts throat..;… yet.
I’ll make a prediction, by year end Justice John Roberts will be eating lunch with WH deputy Chief Karl Rove. You get nothing – lol! God, it must suck being a liberal.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:08 amTP may want to look into Roberts’ connection to Bush vs. Gore, the dumbest/most outrageous legal ruling in the history of the country. Roberts was a partner at Hogan & Harston, a firm which advised the Bush campaign at the time of that travesty.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:29 amBTW – I just saw Boxer get torn a new a new a-hole on Fox. She was trying to lie about Roberts in the “french fry” case and Kieran Chetry didn’t let her get away with it. For those who don’t know – it was a unanimous decision.
I LOVE IT. Finally, liberals will pay for their crimes against democracy. This is NOT 1991 folks – their is a right wing media that will fight you every step of the way so you better not lie. How does it feel knowing that your favorite toy – the Supreme Court – is being taken away from you? Should have played nice.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:31 am#36 – that would have worked before liberals put O’Connor on a pedastal. She was in the majority on Bush v. Gore. lol!!!
July 20th, 2005 at 9:31 amStill looking for an intelligent thought:
Hypothesis: liberals put O’Connor on a pedastal
Data: None.
Conclusion: A pure statement of nonsense.
The time for rhetoric is over.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:39 amJohn S. – stop lying….
“The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts’ name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process.”  Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050720/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_quotes_6
July 20th, 2005 at 9:41 amI met to say Sen. Dick “Slander the Troops” Durbin, oops, my bad. lol!
July 20th, 2005 at 9:42 amMore senseless drivel from NED:
Hypothesis: I am lying John S. – stop lying
Data: A quote from Dick Durbin.
Conclusion: What Dick Durbin has to say has nothing to do with John S. Yet another statement of nonsense.
The time for rhetoric is over.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:49 amJohn S – answer the questions I have posed. How can you attack Roberts over Bush v. Gore when O’Connor ruled the same way.
Glad to see that I am rattling considering you refuse to intelligently debate this. I am not surprised though – eventually, you will all resort to smear to achieve the desired end. Liberals cannot debate as you have proven. Thank you.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:51 amHe watches a Fox News segment and gets giddy. Why waste your time…?
July 20th, 2005 at 9:54 amGiddy – I am not the delusional one. You folks are salivating over Rove before the investigation is even over. Think about it – why would a NYT reporter go to jail to protect a Republican operative? Talk to me when you wipe that egg of your face.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:58 amWow…NED turns ogic fully on its head.
answer the questions I have posed.
You haven’t posed any questions to me. Thus far you have made several nonsensical statements, and nothing more.
How can you attack Roberts over Bush v. Gore when O’Connor ruled the same way.
I think you must be huffing paint, unless you can remind me where on Earth I ever attacked Roberts OR mentioned anything about Bush v. Gore.
Glad to see that I am rattling considering you refuse to intelligently debate this.
Me pointing out the nonsensical nature of your rants is rattling to who? Clearly, you seem to be the one rattled and completely lacking for intelligence since thus far I have yet to see a hypothesis of yours yield a viable conclusion.
eventually, you will all resort to smear to achieve the desired end.
Unfortunately, this is your tactic, as you prove by stating:
Liberals cannot debate as you have proven.
I think we can make the following argument:
Hypothesis: Northeast Dilemma cannot debate.
Data: The entire contents of posts #32,35,37,38,41 and 44 as dissected in posts #34,39,40,43 and this one.
Cocnclusion: Northeast Dilemma cannot debate.
The time for rhetoric is over.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:00 amLyle (#10) writes “Liberals are such bigots when it comes to different ideas. . . . Get over yourselves Liberals and learn to embrace people [who] have different opinions from your own.”
I find his comment ironic and unintentionally funny.
The pro-choice position on abortion is one that *embraces* the notion that people have different opinions, whereas the anti-abortion position — which would outlaw abortions — denies that. This is why many liberals see an anti-abortion judge (such as, possibly, Roberts) to be a bad thing.
And remind me — is it conservatives or liberals who (1) want the Ten Commandments in out public institutions, (2) want prayer in schools, (3) criticize dissent as “unpatriotic”, (4) oppose affirmative action . . . and so on?
I respectfully suggest to Lyle that many conservative positions (e.g., “We are a Christian nation”) are the ones which reject diversity — especially diversity of thought and opinion.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:01 amLet them pick the most conservative SC justices possible.Give them the rope to hang themselves with. This has to come to a head. Just let these right wing retards keep inching out on their limb until the real Americans (including the ones that bought the “values lies” in the past) cut it off. Happy landings in the near future right wing mongoloid boys. I’ll be there to rub salt in your wounds.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:04 amHypothesis: You folks are salivating over Rove before the investigation is even over.
Data: NED continues to bring up Rove (5 times thus far) in the context of a thread about the nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court.
Conclusion: NED is salivating over Rove before the investigation is even over.
The time for rhetoric is over.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:05 amRead what he writes John S.
He watches a Faux News segment, completely ignoring the latest polls…
I LOVE IT. Finally, liberals will pay for their crimes against democracy. This is NOT 1991 folks – their is a right wing media that will fight you every step of the way so you better not lie. How does it feel knowing that your favorite toy – the Supreme Court – is being taken away from you? Should have played nice.
It’s Pinky, minus the Brain.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:13 amIts interesting to note that Arlen Specter himself, is saying he is not so sure about the Roberts nomination.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:15 am#48 – bring on it. Conservatives take the Court and the let the chips fall where they may. Here’s a hint though – after you lose on the Court, you’re not allowed to assasinate the justices that disagree with you.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:15 amThat would be more of a republican trick NeD. Assisinate those who don’t agree with you.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:16 amGiddy – I am not the delusional one. You folks are salivating over Rove before the investigation is even over. Think about it – why would a NYT reporter go to jail to protect a Republican operative? Talk to me when you wipe that egg of your face.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma  July 20, 2005 @ 9:58 am
You’d have to watch Faux News to not know the answer to that question.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:16 amBut thinking about the egg on Bush’s face… that’s priceless. Thanks for the visual.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:18 amYeah! #48 – bring on it.!!!
July 20th, 2005 at 10:19 amAt least he didn’t end the sentence with a preposition.
Look at all those happy faces behind Bush. When he’s lost the cops and firemen, it’s a wonder he even leaves the Bunker.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:22 amBring it on? Are you a chubby chicken hawk too? I can’t wait till these morons get theirs. Keep pissing real America off.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:26 amBet you’ll change your dark blue suit and red power tie faster than a Nazi prison guard upon liberation of a death camp.
Remember: Nature ALWAYS brings things back to the center. Get it Righty!
ROFL!!!
FOXNews (GOP-TV): “We Distort, You Decide.”
Want to have some fun? Google, ‘cable news propaganda.’ Guess who is listed first? Yep, FOXNews (GOP-TV.)
Must be part of the liberal bias of search engines. :-)
. . .
July 20th, 2005 at 10:28 amThink of NeD’s posts where he says things like “Good thing we have Fox news to fight the liberal media”
July 20th, 2005 at 10:31 amBackwoods Nut,
He said #48 – bring on it.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:35 am#53 – Republicans are not the ones who favor ripping a near term “fetus” from a mother’s womb right before you suck it’s brains out.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:36 amNeD have a challenge for you. Please list the decisions by the supreme court that indicate liberals legislating from the bench.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:36 amHe’s Pinky without the Brain.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:36 amGood question, Krazny. Good luck getting an answer.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:37 amNeD
the republicans are in favor of leaving kids living in poverty conditions, without adequate food or medical attention.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:37 amHey Pinky….
Total viewers:
Total day: FNC: 869,000 / CNN: 352,000 / MSNBC: 186,000
Primetime: FNC: 1,758,000 / CNN: 721,000 / MSNBC: 306,000
25-54 demographic:
Total day: FNC: 304,000 / CNN: 98,000 / MSNBC: 76,000
Primetime: FNC: 416,000 / CNN: 150,000 / MSNBC: 129,000
By comparison, last week the Liberal Blog Advertising Network received 5.915 million page views, and that was the worst week in a while, because of Memorial Day. Typically, the Network generates over eight million page views per week. Further, roughly 70% of those page views came from the 25-54 demographic. In other words, these fifty-seven liberal blogs combined have already equaled, if not surpassed, the three cable news networks combined as a source of news among Americans under 55. Without any doubt, the blogosphere in general now far surpasses the three cable news networks as a source for news among Americans under 55.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/7/222858/6979
July 20th, 2005 at 10:40 amHey Pinky….
Aristocratic Right Wing Blogosphere Stagnating
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/12/17357/3049
July 20th, 2005 at 10:42 amHey Pinky…
You can track the bad news about yer “news” source here.
http://mediabistrhttp://mediabistro.com/tvnewser/.com/tvnewser/
How come they are even still on?
July 20th, 2005 at 10:46 amhttp://mediabistro.com/tvnewser/
July 20th, 2005 at 10:47 amhttp://www.mlminspirations.com/html/fun/PInkyAndTheBrain.gif
July 20th, 2005 at 10:56 amKranzy – 1.) Roe v. Wade overturned 48 states’ laws against abortion
2.) Blanket commutation of vicious teenage murderers handed down in March overturned 19 states laws – don’t know name
3.) Texas case that banned prayer before football games made it illegal to do so and created a law against it
4.) Stenberg v. Carnhart (sp) in 2000 overturned a state law banning partial birth abortion (by invoking Sandy’s already made up “undue burden”)
The list is endless…
July 20th, 2005 at 11:01 amCan you site how each of these goes against the US constitution, and the individual votes on each issue. Did the supposed liberal judges go for, or against, did the supposed conservative judges vote for or against?
spouting off a bunch of decicions proves nothing.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:07 amAlso O’conner was appointed by reagan so would she not fall into the conservative category?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:07 amThe liberals NEED to let the most hard core stem-cell lovin quack onto the Supreme Court. We need to get it over with.
Roe v. Wade makes the Religious Right stronger.
Abortion needs to be made legal with stronger laws.
Don’t forget the CIA leak. Email Congress.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:08 amI have a solution for the abortion issue. Anti-abortionist will be placed on a list. When a women is pregnant but does not have the ability to take care of the child, the government can go to the list and give the child to the anti-abortionists to raise. That way they can save a life.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:11 amKranzy – the decisions speak for themselves. The sheer fact that you do not think those items are judicial activism explains why liberalism is dying.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:12 amI did not say they were judicial activism, I was wondering who voted for what? Please answer the question.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:13 amNeD are you a bit Dislexic? its Krazny, not Kranzy.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:14 amEnding abortion starts and ends with prevention.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:17 amThat is what always gets me about the abortion issue. the I don’t want to teach my kids how to use condoms but I don’t want them to have an abortion either. Its pretty much a no brianer in my mind.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:18 amThat’s what it boils down to:
July 20th, 2005 at 11:34 amYou cannot truly enforce a ban on abortion or truly enforce a condomless no-sex society without violating privacy laws. These sentiments are an affront to personal freedom on it’s face.
Science will win the battle against the faith-based propoganda.
Wasn’t that why Roe V Wade was upheld? The idea of individual freedom?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:39 am1.) Roe v. Wade overturned 48 states’ laws against abortion
Culture of Life
2.) Blanket commutation of vicious teenage murderers handed down in March overturned 19 states laws – don’t know name
Culture of Death
3.) Texas case that banned prayer before football games made it illegal to do so and created a law against it
Theocracy, anti-constitutional, public money and prayer even though no law banned anyone from praying, something people generally do in Church or in private.
4.) Stenberg v. Carnhart (sp) in 2000 overturned a state law banning partial birth abortion (by invoking Sandy’s already made up “undue burden�)
Culture of Life
The list is endless…
Wingnuts have no internal consistency or logic. When the can’t be literalists with a Bible, they willl try and do the same with the constitution. These are not conservatives. Liberalism was fading out because we had peace. The war is what is bringing it back. Wars require BIG GUBMINT! And the war is the very reason liberalism is kicking conservatism’s ass. Say Good-bye. If Bush had stayed out of Iraq, he might have pulled it off.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:42 amI agree with most people here. I will not spend much energy worrying about Court nominee’s. We knew Bushie would appoint someone who does not represent America. We are not surprised.
Use the grassroot organizations and members of Congress petitions to demand IMPEACHMENT.
MAKE SURE THAT’S ALL THEY HEAR, IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT.
Use this opportunity wisely and we shall prevail.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:04 pmGiddy and Susan are on the money.
Bush was dillusional when he muttered the MANDATE nonsense. He over estimated public support. Bad math skills.
He are the folks who publicly support Rove:
Rep. King, Peter (R-NY-3rd)
July 20th, 2005 at 12:18 pmSen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)
Sen. Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Sen. Coleman, Norm (R-MN
Rep. Blunt, Roy (R-MO-7th
Sen. Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
Stomp the Faux Federalists! ACS!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_17.php#006140
July 20th, 2005 at 12:37 pmKranzy – the decisions speak for themselves. The sheer fact that you do not think those items are judicial activism explains why liberalism is dying.
Comment by The Northeast Dilemma
The fact that I work at a Wal-Mart notwithstanding.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:43 pmNortheast Dillema and all of the other right wing extremists who post here have convicted Saddam Hussien without due process yet they say we shouldn’t do the same to Rove.
What a bunch of hypocrits.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:58 pmYou know who else they convicted without due process. Sadamm Husseins children, they played judge, jury and executor.
Oh yeah, they played God too.
What a bunch of freaks!
July 20th, 2005 at 1:01 pmI have to laugh when both sides claim that “mainstream America” is on their side. What does mainstream America believe? That abortion should be legal no matter what the circumstances? That abortion should be illegal no matter what the circumstances? Neither!! It’s somewhere in the middle which neither libs or cons seem to understand!
For example, a recent poll showed that an overwhelming majority (60%+) of Americans think that Roe v. Wade should NOT be overturned. Yet that same overwhelming majority sited a desire to have a more conservative SC. While this seems to contradict itself, it shows that most Americans do value their personal rights but with limits. Is it really OK to have an abortion? Yes, but with certain limitations. Is it really OK for a 13 year old to have an abortion without her parent or guardian knowing about it? What if that pregancy was due to the actions of her guardian? Is it really OK to abort a 3rd trimester pregnancy “just because”? Is it OK to tell a woman that she can’t abort a fetus that was the result of a rape?
“Mainstream America” left you guys behind long ago.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:12 pmMark,
July 20th, 2005 at 1:47 pmThe nature of argument is that you do not start in the middle or compromising position(especially true with these right wing fanatics). I think you are forced into arguing in this manner, to some degree, or you play into their hands.
Overall, you are right though. The center(mainstream) IS the CENTER, with each extreme pulling at it. You can’t let the right get too much of an advantage though.
Mark,
Roe v. Wade continiues to be thrust into the forefront because the GOP panders to the religious right. They would not be in power without them. They play the game of extremes, so the term “mainstrean” keeps popping up to counter this phenomena.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:49 pmFor example, a 13 year old needing parental notification is not about the 13 year old. It is about ANY constraint that can be used to counter Roe. Many fear all these peripheral laws, and the redefinition of life, will leave the courts with no choice but to overturn Roe because there will be so many laws on the books that counter it.
LOL, both responses after mine prove my point. Look at their statements. Both end up vilifying the right and in a round-a-bout way, equate their own train of thought to that of “mainstream America”. They both espouse the theory that it is only the Rep/cons/religious right that cause problems and that the Dem’s/lib’s/left’s values more closely reflect those of “mainstream America” and without them, “mainstream America” would cease to exist as we know it.
They would have you believe that libs take a radically left stance to better bargain themselves to the “mainstream America” which is where they truly really want to be, whereas cons start out on the far right because that’s where they want to be and want things to stay, with no compromise. Brian even goes so far as to say that “mainstream America” is what counteracts the actions of Republicans and radical conservatives. It could just as easily be argued that it is “mainstream Americans” that have counteracted the Democrat’s and liberal’s attempts to use the judicial system to legislate by voting in a Republican majority to make sure more conservative judges are appointed to the bench.
I know that your take on the subject is directly linked to your phlisophical/ideological beliefs but please don’t try to fool anyone into thinking that a liberal view point more accurately reflects the thoughts of “mainstream America”. Both ends of the political spectrum are just as far removed from “mainstream America” as the other.
July 20th, 2005 at 3:35 pmI don’t think Mark knows what “liberal” or “conservative” really means. He’s either drunk the kool-aid, or he’s in the “mainstream”, the lowest common denominator. Here’s “mainstream America” for you Mark. I intend to keep it as far removed from myself as I can. Ah! Those heartland values!
A well-known resident of Hominy, Okla., walked into a local diner Tuesday afternoon and shot a pregnant waitress, 26-year-old Becky Clements, in the head, then shot her again in the stomach and chest. Sheriff Ty Koch said the motive is apparently a recent letter to the editor of the Hominy newspaper, the News Progress, written by the woman.
Osage County authorities say they’ll ask for two first-degree murder charges against 63-year-old Roy Westbrook.
Westbrook was recently honored by the newspaper as Hominy’s 2004 Citizen of the year.
…
The letter from the dead woman had said local vandalism is done by prominent citizens and referred to spray-painted graffiti on a rental home owned by Westbrook, although it did not name him. The letter did say the spray-painting was done by the owner.
Westbrook was trying to evict the victim’s sister from the building.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000988042
July 20th, 2005 at 4:45 pmYeah, I’m an elitist. And you are a oakie and an idiot. So STFU!
July 20th, 2005 at 4:47 pmI’m anti-abortion, pro-choice.
Roe IS bench legislation.
I consider myself mainstream on these points.
I am NOT mainstream when I say that Roe makes the RR stronger because it rallies them by default. They can’t end abortion so they want to infect american life in any other way they can.
Roe needs to be overturned so that stronger laws legalizing abortion can be written.
July 20th, 2005 at 4:50 pmROTFL!! Nice retort Giddy!! I don’t even know where to begin with this one… Considering your posts made no sense whatsoever and were nothin more than insults I’m not sure I should even converse with you. What’s the point?
I will say this, I’m not sure why you think that story is a good representation of “mainstream America” other than it was posted in an Oklahoma newspaper. Good thing nothing like this ever happens in a blue state, eh? It doesn’t matter though as I’m sure it makes sense to you and there’s no arguing with liberal logic, is there! LOL When you have an actual thought that makes sense and doesn’t involve insults get back to me. In the mean time I’ll just drink my Kool-Aid and look at the world through rose colored glasses… You just keep toking on that funny cigarette! ;-)
Brian, I can respect that. At least you admit that some of what you believe is not mainstream. That was my biggest beef, everyone thinking that they are mainstream but having radically different philosophies. Peace.
Giddy, you rock dude!!
July 20th, 2005 at 6:01 pmLaws, what laws?
Like American’s care about laws. Laws are broken every single minute of every single day. (Google BushCo)
Now light that doob and mellow out.
July 20th, 2005 at 6:24 pmOh, I get it Mark your the guy who comes in between the fighters and tops everyone with your self righteous BS. You are a hero, but not in the real world. You must have been the kid in school who the teacher went to when she asked, “now what lesson can we learn from this?”Mark?
I beleive that I said nothing to villify the right. I was talking “real world”. I was talking about not conceding so that there is an advantage (ON EITHER SIDE).If there is a mid-point, you either lie on one side, or the other. Choose or you are a fake. I chose, and this is a progressive site last time I checked.
Human nature requires an equal response in order to maintain oneself.
Ever heard of a tug-of-war?Do you pull from the middle?Get any leverage? Where does that mid-point flag end up?Physics, and it applies.
That was a real reach to prove a lame know-it-all point.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:12 pmYes mark, extremes are part of the political spectrum and they effect the mainstream and in order to have a balance ,one side must must must counteract the other.
Stop “going over” others to win your brownie points no one is giving them here.
Centrists are pussies.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:52 amken ashford,
you don’t think i know conservatives can be bigots too? my point did not embrace conservative bigotry, it embraces liberal bigotry. why? cause liberals also assume they know what is right and what is wrong.
abolishing abortion, by the way, (which I’m against doing) is action not a disrespecting of opinion. some liberals believe it out right wrong to think abortion is wrong and belittle pro-lifers. pro-lifers do the same thing with pro-choicers.
puritanism exist not only in conservatives, but also liberals.
do you understand that?
July 21st, 2005 at 1:09 amLiberals like pure drugs, no cut. Is that puritanism? and I’m just talking about the prescribed stuff. Under conservatives they cut the prescribed meds to make a buck.
July 21st, 2005 at 4:47 pmTake your time to check the sites dedicated to… Thanks!!!
September 29th, 2005 at 1:27 amreveled:calcify?referring:dabbles besides provincial,repute:
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:15 pmdetectives vanquish,folded buzzards defy encircles … Thanks!!!
November 23rd, 2005 at 5:27 pmiterate Sutherland priggish exponentiate:Jesuits?haying,
November 27th, 2005 at 1:58 amSwords
Swords Online Order
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:15 pmfree nextel ringtones
free nextel ringtones
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:28 amDragonball
Dragonball
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:14 amT-Mobile Ringtones
T-Mobile Ringtones
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:12 pmfree song lyrics
free song lyrics
December 25th, 2005 at 12:21 pmcheap webhosting
cheap webhosting
December 25th, 2005 at 2:04 pmfree t-mobile ringtones
free t-mobile ringtones
December 27th, 2005 at 12:25 pmjohn spencer
john spencer
December 27th, 2005 at 7:00 pmxbox 360 games
xbox 360 games
December 28th, 2005 at 6:16 pmipod mini
ipod mini
December 30th, 2005 at 8:37 pmsports tickets
sports tickets
December 31st, 2005 at 2:26 amjewelry
Jewelry
January 1st, 2006 at 8:02 pmjewellery
jewellery
January 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 amFree Texas Hold Um…
Do I spell it right? Free Texas Hold Um…
January 8th, 2006 at 12:48 pmfree cell phone ringtones…
Let it ring: Cell Phone Ringtones…
January 9th, 2006 at 12:46 pmringtones for motorola cell phone
Are free ringtones for cellular south customer download free mosquito ringtones
March 14th, 2008 at 4:01 pmadvance cash day loan pay
But download free christian ringtones application loan payday
March 14th, 2008 at 6:20 pm