Comments on: John Roberts’s Affirmative Action File Goes Up In Smoke

By: sexy secretary

sexy secretary — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:11:15 +0000

sexy secretary…

gimmemoney 541253 Latest sexy secretary news…

By: dvd

dvd — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:19:26 +0000

all you need to sex toys and you need to adult dvd from the adult dvds you can know all from this

By: college basketball betting

college basketball betting — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:14:02 +0000

college basketball betting

You can also take a look at the pages in the field of Jackpot nevada show information

By: Think Progress » A “Large Volume” of Roberts’s Files “Mislabeled”

Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:55:42 +0000

[...] First the National Archives “lost” John Roberts’s affirmative action file after it was reviewed by two administration lawyers. Now the National Archives says it “mislabeled” a bunch of other files related to Roberts. The AP reports: The National Archives announced on Tuesday that the Top of Form Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., had discovered a “large volume” of unreviewed and unreleased Roberts documents that were filed under a code instead of under Roberts’ name. Additional employees from the Archives have been sent to the Reagan library to review the documents to determine what or how much can be released, officials said. [...]

By: Think Progress » Why Roberts’ Affirmative Action File Is Missing

Think Progress » Why Roberts’ Affirmative Action File Is Missing — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:39:30 +0000

[...] Whatever happened to the Supreme Court nominee John Robertsâ€™ file on affirmative action, it can be definitively stated that this is all President Bushâ€™s fault. Sound a little extreme? Not really. [...]

By: KJ Lovell

KJ Lovell — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:14:34 +0000

How will dumbya appoint roberts if he is not confirmed?

(serious question)

By: KJ Lovell

KJ Lovell — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 04:12:20 +0000

dumbya recommending anyone for anything is not a good idea.

It is like Hitler suggesting who should be in charge of checks and balances of his germany.

or asking the fox who he wants to guard the hen house.

Not wise. He hasn’t promoted anyone ANYONE without a QUESTIONABLE PAST. just favors for favors… here’s your promotion sonny.

By: Potato Picker

Potato Picker — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:21:55 +0000

From crooksandliars.com

Bill O’Reilly Poll on Cindy

Do you respect what Cindy Sheehan is doing?

Bill has been pounding on her for days now. Here’s his site and you actually don’t have to pay to vote in the poll.
http://billoreilly.com/

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:15:59 +0000

It is not sufficient basis in general, BS, and was not in that case in particular. So what you said is completely wrong. Just call yourself an ideologue and stop trying to misrepresent facts, because the facts don’t fit your opinions.

By: Blue State Red

Blue State Red — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:36:00 +0000

Since you mentioned it, the Schiavo case provides an interesting contrast with other matters of life and death. For example, under Florida law, an husband’s tesitimony about a remembered oral conversation, many years earlier, is a sufficient basis for giving the husband power to prevent his wife from receiving life-sustaining nourishment. By contrast, under Roe v. Wade, there is no amount of evidence sufficient to give a husband the power to prevent the abortion of his own child.

What a country!

By: kindness

kindness — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:39:05 +0000

Let me give specific examples.

The Terry Schavio case. In every discussion reguarding bushco’s actions and dumbya’s pronouncement, they were done with the integrity of something out of Animal Farm.

dumbya continually rails against the government forcing the people to abide by governments will (against what the people want). He has repeatedly stated that he wants judges that aren’t “activist”. Every judge who reviewed the Schavio case (most of whom were republicans) said it wasn’t anyone but the husband and wife’s decision & the government should butt out. bushco called every one of those judges “activist” purely because he didn’t do what they wanted. ie – Animal Farm.

We want judges that act as the judges in the Schavio case did and rule like they ruled. Dumbya and bushco do not. They just want to claim to want strict constitutionalists while actually being “activist” (again, Animal Farm).

We question which kind of category Roberts fits under.

By: kindness

kindness — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:26:35 +0000

BSR – we aren’t really listening to you because you are trying to sell us that bushco is completely forthright and up front.

We aren’t listening to you because we have found in EVERY situation that bushco speaks with forked tongue. He says something but does and means another. That is the basis for our current mindsets. It isn’t that we are tinfoil hat wearers, we are cognicent of our recent experience with the regime.

Stop giving us crap about it. Give your points and go on.

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:18:23 +0000

That would be the Karl Rove Trophy?

By: Blue State Red

Blue State Red — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:06:26 +0000

“smear the little GOP bastard anyway you can.”

My what big nasty insults you have! I’ll bet you have lots of trophies for being a master debater.

There has to be a better way than this to discuss our disagreements.

By: KillCon2005

KillCon2005 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:39:43 +0000

Roberts is not acceptable. Unless you don’t value the “judicially activist” construction of a right to privacy. Case closed. What he thought, if he does think, of Corretta Scott King is irrelevant. But smear the little GOP bastard anyway you can. Death by a thousand cuts.

By: Krazny

Krazny — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:30:09 +0000

if we can end racism we can end affirmative action tony its that simple.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:26:30 +0000

Point 1: Roberts did not make disparaging remarks about Coretta Scott King. Judd, do you expect people not to read the articles you link to? From now on, readers should be sure to read all of your references before believing your claims.

Point 2: I hope Roberts is against affirmative action. Otherwise, he would be supporting racism.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” -MLK Jr.

By: Krazny

Krazny — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:24:07 +0000

BSR is correct that the globe article does not indicate in anyway that roberts made disparaging remarks about mrs. King.

however he ignores the larger context of missing documents that have to be rebuilt from laywers notes.

something is fishy in DS

By: Blue State Red

Blue State Red — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:19:04 +0000

Let’s try to stick to the subject of the original post. I suppose we could debate the origins of political correctness, but how debatable is my contextual point that, by 1982, it was politically correct for GOP politicians to avoid any appearance of criticism of certain civil rights leaders, especially including Mrs. King; and that in her case such political correctness was an unwritten rule of political discourse imposed by the left, rather than the right?

According to the Globe article, young Mr. Roberts clearly recognized this fact of political life, and he so advised the older – and perhaps less PC astute – Attorney General Smith. Whatever virtues or vices that may reveal about him, Mr. Roberts certainly cannot fairly be said to have made “disparaging remarks” about Mrs. King, which was Judd’s original charge.

By: KillCon2005

KillCon2005 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:08:23 +0000

I suggest that on a site calling itself â€œThink Progressâ€ we should have enough intellectual honesty to discuss these things on their merits, rather than calling names and changing the subject. Any takers?

Haha! There is nothing to discuss. This is war. Are you surrendering? If you are it’s unconditional, or go take a flying you know what. Your side had the opportunity for compromise. Your side thought you had a “mandate” and “political capital”. Your side blew it, and now you want to “talk”? Talk to yourself until you are BLUE in the face. Then we might be entertained.