Roberts' Pro-Bono Work: Liberals Outraged at Lack of Conservative Outrage
"Their refusal to jump when we scream 'fag!' is alarming," claim top Democrats.
Image appears no thanks to Wonkette
Unable to derail the Conservative nominee for the highest court, an exasperated Howard Dean vows that his DNC will "up the ante" if necessary. "We'll remind Republicans at every turn what a queen this man is - showtunes, Streisand, good footwear - you name it, he's into it."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) reinforced Dean's defiant stance, "We'll use our subpoena power if that's what it takes. I believe Americans want to know exactly how many years Judge Roberts has known Long Dong Silver."
Image appears no thanks to Wonkette
Unable to derail the Conservative nominee for the highest court, an exasperated Howard Dean vows that his DNC will "up the ante" if necessary. "We'll remind Republicans at every turn what a queen this man is - showtunes, Streisand, good footwear - you name it, he's into it."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) reinforced Dean's defiant stance, "We'll use our subpoena power if that's what it takes. I believe Americans want to know exactly how many years Judge Roberts has known Long Dong Silver."
posted by BohemianLikeYOU at 8/09/2005 07:52:00 PM
19 Comments:
This comment placed here for the same purpose that a bartender puts a couple of his own dollars in the tip jar at the beginning of his shift. Comments beget comments.
Reality check:
Conservatives ARE coming out against John Roberts. Just read this: http://www.nysun.com/article/18115
And Ann Coulter came out against Roberts only days after the nomination was announced:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=66
And yesterday [Wed., Aug.10] a conservative group announced its opposition:
[from the Associated Press, see
http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/1666441.html]
A conservative group in Virginia is withdrawing its support for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays.
The stance announced Wednesday by Public Advocate of the United States strays from other conservative groups that have endorsed Roberts.
The group describes itself as a pro-family organization. Group president, Eugene Delgaudio says he hopes his stance will prod others to not endorse Roberts as well.
Delgaudio says the group won't take its limited resources and put it toward a candidate who isn't a strict constructionist.
Coulter supports him but calls him a mystery date - and rightly so. We don't need another Souter.
It's true some don't support him, but the VAST majority of conservatives will really enjoy seeing Justice Roberts cast the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
no more legal, safe abortions?
no more control by woman of their own bodies?
hmmmmmmmmmmm
p.s. Souter Rocks!
Hmmm...35 million safe abortions since 1972. How many of these babies were the product of incest or rape?
Adoption on demand! :)
Assuming "Justice Roberts cast[s] the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade," which he has said he would not as, according to his reasoning, Roe v. Wade had proven itself to be the best interpretation of law, how does this solve anything?
Whether you like it or not, there are many women who feel they have the right to a certain level of control over their own bodies. This is a level that you, it is apparent, disagree with. Now, likewise, you are not alone. But, going back to the assumption that Roe is overturned... many women, though nowhere near as many, will "abort" a "fetus," albeit illegally. Will adoption rise? Will foster homes grow more crowded? Will a Democrat be in the White House when several Conservative Judges retire from the bench, prompting an inevitable pendulum swing awaiting a return trip?
Point is this: As a Pro-Life person, that being that I believe personally that life should be upheld and protected at all costs, but not necessarily that it is my duty to ensure that all politicians receiving my vote are Pro-Life, I believe this Country and the Pro-Life cause would be far better served by people getting involved on a more local/personal level. Because, let's face it... Even if it were illegal today: a) doesn't mean that it won't be perfectly legal tomorrow, vice versa, ib so facto, and b) doesn't mean that many women wouldn't do it anyway.
Matthew, thanks your post.
Roberts' wife belongs to a "Feminists for Life" cause. I think this tells us more about how he'll vote than parsing his nuanced statements.
I used to believe exactly as you do: pro-life personally / pro-choice politically.
I could not resolve a couple fundamental things though: changing the word "baby" to "fetus" doesn't absolve us as a society or individually. Abortion is what it is and it's gruesome.
Secondly, it's predicated upon the same reasoning that kept slaves in shackles --> *this* class of human is not as valuable as *that* class of human. *This* human is expendable, while *that* human is not.
What choice can be excercised when you're discussing degrees of personhood?
Every Sperm is Sacred?
Ha! A Monty Python fan!
So how do you feel about this guy? Your remarks don't sound too favorable as you seem to imply that he is pussy whipped and will allow that to get in the way of performing his duties.
"changing the word 'baby' to 'fetus' doesn't absolve us as a society or individually."
Our society's changing of the word "baby" to "fetus" does not damn me as an individual.
I think the argument against the slaves=fetus comparison, and I don't know for sure as I don't hold to it, is that while slaves were considered only half of a person (or two-thirds, whatever despicable partial number was chosen) they were considered the property of their master, whereas a "baby," of "fetus," is literally a part of the physical body of a woman, not a seperate entity that she possesses.
After Republicans make it so that only in New York and New Jersey allow abortions, is birth control the next thing they go after?
Check this out:
http://www.all.org/brthcnt.htm
Matthew,
I certainly meant no offense to you personally. I should have made that clearer.
My position is akin to that of Orwell's from 1984. Language is extremely powerful. Euphemisms are dangerous in some contexts.
From Wikipedia:
"Orwell's concern over the power of language to shape reality is also reflected in his invention of Newspeak, the official language of the imaginary country of Oceania in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Newspeak is a variant of English in which vocabulary is strictly limited by government fiat. The goal is to make it increasingly difficult to express ideas that contradict the official line — with the final aim of making it impossible even to conceive such ideas."
Bad things can be made more palatable by redefining the language to describe them. Fetus is a prime example of this.
Child, human, baby, person, infant don't work at all when defending abortion.
Becoming pregnant is almost always a choice - as is ending the life that results from it.
The slavery/abortion argument is perfectly sound. The day will come when we look back at abortion-as-birth-control with the same horror and disgust that we feel when we look back at slavery. We'll ask ourselves "How could we ever have justified that?"
I took no offense personally, and I apologize if my use of language suggested so.
My point was simply that a governments decisions as to what becomes a part of the law of the land does not have an ultimate effect on me personally.
If someone were standing in opposition of Slavery, but then the country went and named it "Servitude," the man's quest would not change at all. Likewise he would not be any more or less damned for the countries decission to use a more politically correct, less accurate word.
The major difference I see between these two issues that keep popping up, slavery and abortion, is that at this point in American history the country is so incredibly torn right down the middle on abortion that the most effective work can be done at the grassroots level, rather than the Supreme Court level. I would like to think that just about everyone in America today is Pro-Freedom, and Anti-Slavery.
Amen - I think we (bloggers) are doing that grassroots work :)
I realize I didn't answer your question about Roberts.
I'm not sure how I feel about him, frankly. *A lot* of people in DC like him and ironically, I think that's a liability to some. Sometimes people who are universally liked aren't very effective. Or, they've managed not to offend anyone by having very few strong opinions about things over time - sort of like a local TV news anchor! :)
In sum, I trust the President's decision, but I'm in the wait and see camp.
What are your thoughts overall?
"Or, they've managed not to offend anyone by having very few strong opinions about things over time"
Actually, my reason for liking the man is because of the fact that it seems he hasn't amassed a slew of very strong opinions. I don't see this, however, as being a way to not step on any toes, but rather shows his very strong devotion to his job/position, a trait which I think is of the utmost importance for a Supreme Court Justice. Whatever his views on abortion or gay rights or whatever else people are bringing up, as an attorney his responsibilty was to represent his clients view and defend it ferociously. He has proven himself to be able to do this, and do it well. I think it should automatically follow that whatever his personal view on a particular law is, he is fully capable of setting his personal feelings aside and fulfilling his responsibility of "defending" the constitution.
In sum, I rarely trust this President's decisions, but I actually think he got this one pretty close to the bullseye.
Matthew - thanks for your perspective. I hope we can both support this man.
We could have another civil war over abortion, no? Talk about a country torn down the middle!
Hello Charles,
Thanks for your post.
Yes we could. I'm sure they said the same things regarding slavery before THE Civil War.
Enjoyed your physics blog - good luck!
Post a Comment
<< Home