Bush to announce new supreme court justice

[quote name='sgs89']It would be a dead heat. And would serve to confirm burgeoning rumors that Judge Roberts is gay. Yes, while I don't believe them, those rumors are making the rounds, based on his late marriage, adopted kids, many pictures with other men, etc.[/QUOTE]

Where in the world are these rumors circulating at?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Where in the world are these rumors circulating at?[/QUOTE]

Among other places, the blog community is abuzz with the rumors. Again, I think they are mainly toungue-in-cheek and I do not believe them.

Then again, he DID attend an all-male prep school.....
 
Well, of all people who love to criticize Bush appointees, I certainly can't fault a grammarian. He's likely the first of his kind in this administration.

slumgullion, indeed.
 
To be fair, President Bush has appointed MANY smart people to various positions. There are, of course, notable exceptions. But, President Bush did not get to where he is today by surrounding himself with stupid people, of that I can assure you.

Judge Roberts will surely be one of the smartest, though.
 
[quote name='sgs89']To be fair, President Bush has appointed MANY smart people to various positions. There are, of course, notable exceptions. But, President Bush did not get to where he is today by surrounding himself with stupid people, of that I can assure you.

Judge Roberts will surely be one of the smartest, though.[/QUOTE]
How smart can they be when they have to agree with everything Bush does? Whenever someone contradicts him, they are fired or forced out of office. Bush demands loyalty more than intelligence from his people.

This is the brain trust that told us Iraq would be a cake walk, that the war would pay for itself and that the intelligence about WMDs was a slam dunk. Anyone who thought otherwise was ignored. It's hard to be more wrong than that.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']How smart can they be when they have to agree with everything Bush does? Whenever someone contradicts him, they are fired or forced out of office. Bush demands loyalty more than intelligence from his people.

This is the brain trust that told us Iraq would be a cake walk, that the war would pay for itself and that the intelligence about WMDs was a slam dunk. Anyone who thought otherwise was ignored. It's hard to be more wrong than that.[/QUOTE]

Being wrong (at least so far) and being stupid are two different things. Smart people are often wrong -- it is still too early to determine in the specific example you use whether they were wrong, though.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Being wrong (at least so far) and being stupid are two different things. Smart people are often wrong -- it is still too early to determine in the specific example you use whether they were wrong, though.[/QUOTE]


Which part of the example is it too early to determine?
 
[quote name='niceguyshawne']Which part of the example is it too early to determine?[/QUOTE]

Whether the war in Iraq will be an abject failure. So far, it is not looking good, but the final report card won't come in for several more years.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Whether the war in Iraq will be an abject failure. So far, it is not looking good, but the final report card won't come in for several more years.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't one of my points.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That wasn't one of my points.[/QUOTE]

Well, it was the general subject matter of your critique.

But, on your specific points, you are correct that the Administration was wrong. There were no WMDs (or at least it doesn't look like there were any) and the war will most definitely NOT pay for itself.
 
[quote name='sgs89']W just announced that Roberts will be nominated as Chief Justice now that CJ Rehnquist is dead. Great move by W -- Roberts would make a great Chief. [/quote]

I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not.[/QUOTE]

It is not.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']WTF HE JUST BECAME A JUSTICE!!!! This is bullshit.[/QUOTE]

Actually, he is not yet a Justice at all (he has not yet been confirmed).

But, again, before folks jump to conclusions, please realize that it is NOT uncommon for a NEW justice to be nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice upon the death of the sitting Chief. (Of course, it is also not uncommon for an associate Justice to be elevated to Chief, as Rehnquist was by President Reagan.)
 
[quote name='sgs89']Great move by W -- Roberts would make a great Chief. [/QUOTE]

Personally I'd prefer someone with more bench experience to be chief. Not to mention one whose wife isn't an anti-abortion activist. But we all knew GW would put a conservative on the bench. I'm actually shocked Scalia didn't get it as he's the administrations boy and all.
 
dubya-katrina-supreme-court.jpg
 
Uh, I hate to break this to you, but Roberts was nominated BEFORE the hurricane. If you are going to launch an attack, at least make it semi-credible.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Uh, I hate to break this to you, but Roberts was nominated BEFORE the hurricane. If you are going to launch an attack, at least make it semi-credible.[/QUOTE]

Of course he was dude. The gag is that he is controversial, so recent tragic events make this an opportune time to push through an unpopular choice.

I don't necessarily agree (I am undecided at this point), I just wanted to explain the joke to you in terms that you and the other Bush Jr zombie-conservatives can understand.
 
[quote name='camoor']Of course he was dude. The gag is that he is controversial, so recent tragic events make this an opportune time to push through an unpopular choice.

I don't necessarily agree (I am undecided at this point), I just wanted to explain the joke to you in terms that you and the other Bush Jr zombie-conservatives can understand.[/QUOTE]

Wow, I wasn't anticipating this level of misunderstanding. How is Bush using the hurricane to "push through" the Roberts' nomination? That is just silly -- the hearings were scheduled long before the hurricane. If anything, the hurricane has DELAYED the hearings and made them tougher. It is one thing to criticize Bush. It is another thing to do so in such an absurd manner that you prove your own idiocy.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Wow, I wasn't anticipating this level of misunderstanding. How is Bush using the hurricane to "push through" the Roberts' nomination? That is just silly -- the hearings were scheduled long before the hurricane. If anything, the hurricane has DELAYED the hearings and made them tougher. It is one thing to criticize Bush. It is another thing to do so in such an absurd manner that you prove your own idiocy.[/QUOTE]

LoL I don't agree yet either. Time will tell however, and I wouldn't put it past Karl Rove to use ANYTHING to his advantage, as long as he doesn't have the appearance of impropriety.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I thought you guys might get a kick out of this letter signed by 170 so-called law professors denouncing the nomination of Judge Roberts.

http://www.geocities.com/e_chemerinsky/robertsoppletter.pdf

It is a complete joke by a few extremely left-wing law professors who dislike Judge Roberts because of their perception of his political views.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, professors. What do THEY know? :roll:

You're better than most here at articulating an argument. Perhaps you could refute the claims of these "few" (170 is a few?) professors, instead of simply lambasting them as "left-wing."

What points of contention did they bring up that you find to be incorrect, misleading, or otherwise misstated? What have they ignored that would, in the event that they are correct, make their criticisms moot?

In short, your biases are clearly showing; while you seem to denounce people who already dislike Roberts (which is more of a Pavlovian reaction as a result of previous Bush nominees, IMO), you don't express similar contempt for your own stolid-yet-not-completely-informed position on Roberts. What would it take for you to find Roberts unsuitable for the job?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, professors. What do THEY know? :roll:

You're better than most here at articulating an argument. Perhaps you could refute the claims of these "few" (170 is a few?) professors, instead of simply lambasting them as "left-wing."

What points of contention did they bring up that you find to be incorrect, misleading, or otherwise misstated? What have they ignored that would, in the event that they are correct, make their criticisms moot?

In short, your biases are clearly showing; while you seem to denounce people who already dislike Roberts (which is more of a Pavlovian reaction as a result of previous Bush nominees, IMO), you don't express similar contempt for your own stolid-yet-not-completely-informed position on Roberts. What would it take for you to find Roberts unsuitable for the job?[/QUOTE]

While you may think that the fact that the signatories are law professors entitles them to greater credibility on this issue, the truth is quite the opposite. There is a cadre of extreme left-leaning law professors (indeed, many, if not most, would so qualify) whose views are impacted quite substantially by their political sensibilities. Also, you will note that the professors who signed this letter are, by and large, not legal luminaries and do not teach at the top institutions (with a few notable exceptions). Indeed, only one Harvard Law School (Judge Roberts' alma mater) professor signed on (this notwithstanding HLS' reputation as a liberal bastion).

As for the content of the letter, it suffers from the same failings as most of the attacks on Judge Roberts -- it attempts to take positions he advocated FOR HIS CLIENT and ascribe them to him personally. This is, as we've discussed, invalid.

Furthermore, it also argues that, just because Judge Roberts may have certain views that are not shared by these law professors, he should be disqualified from serving on the SCOTUS. Again, this is a fallacy. The question is whether he can faithfully discharge his duties -- there is no evidence that he cannot. The fact that you might disagree with him on certain points of law does not mean that he is unable to act in good faith as a jurist.

Finally, Professor Murder, please be aware that I am not a Bush supporter. I support Judge Roberts because I think he is among the most qualified individuals to serve as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. He is smart, well-reasoned, and faithful to the Constitution. The views of 170 partisan law professors cannot change that.
 
[quote name='sgs89']While you may think that the fact that the signatories are law professors entitles them to greater credibility on this issue, the truth is quite the opposite. There is a cadre of extreme left-leaning law professors (indeed, many, if not most, would so qualify) whose views are impacted quite substantially by their political sensibilities. Also, you will note that the professors who signed this letter are, by and large, not legal luminaries and do not teach at the top institutions (with a few notable exceptions). Indeed, only one Harvard Law School (Judge Roberts' alma mater) professor signed on (this notwithstanding HLS' reputation as a liberal bastion).

As for the content of the letter, it suffers from the same failings as most of the attacks on Judge Roberts -- it attempts to take positions he advocated FOR HIS CLIENT and ascribe them to him personally. This is, as we've discussed, invalid.

Furthermore, it also argues that, just because Judge Roberts may have certain views that are not shared by these law professors, he should be disqualified from serving on the SCOTUS. Again, this is a fallacy. The question is whether he can faithfully discharge his duties -- there is no evidence that he cannot. The fact that you might disagree with him on certain points of law does not mean that he is unable to act in good faith as a jurist.

Finally, Professor Murder, please be aware that I am not a Bush supporter. I support Judge Roberts because I think he is among the most qualified individuals to serve as Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. He is smart, well-reasoned, and faithful to the Constitution. The views of 170 partisan law professors cannot change that.[/QUOTE]

You managed to spend a good deal of time repeating that which you've already claimed.

I'm curious how you feel about their assertion that his positions place a great deal of deference and authority in the hands of police and other authorities, as well as the president, while also constraining the role and scope of congress's capabilities? That's a pretty strong claim for them to make.

Since he was a lawyer/legal consultant up until the past 2 years, I imagine that you'll blow off any claim of his ideology, instead asserting that he's merely serving his client. Which proves a desperate need for a round of questioning at the hands of congress (even moreso if he's to be installed as CJ).

I'm also curious at how you came to realize his allegiance to the constitution (and is he a literal or figurative interpreter?), since everything he's evidently done thus far is client service. Has he amounted to any significant decisions as the judge of the court of appeals? What are they?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You managed to spend a good deal of time repeating that which you've already claimed.

I'm curious how you feel about their assertion that his positions place a great deal of deference and authority in the hands of police and other authorities, as well as the president, while also constraining the role and scope of congress's capabilities? That's a pretty strong claim for them to make.

Since he was a lawyer/legal consultant up until the past 2 years, I imagine that you'll blow off any claim of his ideology, instead asserting that he's merely serving his client. Which proves a desperate need for a round of questioning at the hands of congress (even moreso if he's to be installed as CJ).

I'm also curious at how you came to realize his allegiance to the constitution (and is he a literal or figurative interpreter?), since everything he's evidently done thus far is client service. Has he amounted to any significant decisions as the judge of the court of appeals? What are they?[/QUOTE]

Professor Murder,

Their assertion that Judge Roberts advocates a strong executive branch is unsurprising when they cite work he did ON BEHALF OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. I cannot overstate the fallacy with equating one's work on behalf of a client with someone's personal views. I know you say that I am repeating myself, but that is only because all of these attacks against Roberts are the same.

Insofar as Roberts' narrow view of congressional power to regulate affairs in the states is concerned, it all has to do with one's view of the Commerce Clause. For a long time, the courts took a VERY expansive view of that clause -- allowing the federal government to regulate virtually anything, no matter how tangential the connection to interstate commerce. Lately, the SCOTUS has begun to shift to a more narrow view of that power. Judge Roberts is in line with that view. Again, his view of the Commerce Clause is, in a sense, immaterial to whether he is qualified to serve as CJ. No one doubts that he has a legitimate view of the Clause, even if it is not the one to which you subscribe.

As for my belief that he will faithfully interpret the Constitution, all you need to do is go look at his opinions on the DC Circuit. They are not that difficult to find.
 
[quote name='62t']sgs89, just wondering what you thoughts on alberto gonzales as a candidate to replace o'connor[/QUOTE]

Frankly, I am not a big fan of Attorney General Gonzales. I think there are many more qualified candidates. He is not a legal luminary by any means.
 
[quote name='sgs89']As for my belief that he will faithfully interpret the Constitution, all you need to do is go look at his opinions on the DC Circuit. They are not that difficult to find.[/QUOTE]

You had built a great deal of credibility in my eyes, but since you seem to be dodging this question, rather than answering it (as my question, quoted below, asked about your epiphany of Robert's qualifications based on his treatment of the constitution, and not some objective standard that may or may not exist). I'm not so sure about that credibility anymore, FWIW (which may not be much).

[quote name='me']I'm also curious at how you came to realize his allegiance to the constitution (and is he a literal or figurative interpreter?), since everything he's evidently done thus far is client service. Has he amounted to any significant decisions as the judge of the court of appeals? What are they?[/quote]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You had built a great deal of credibility in my eyes, but since you seem to be dodging this question, rather than answering it (as my question, quoted below, asked about your epiphany of Robert's qualifications based on his treatment of the constitution, and not some objective standard that may or may not exist). I'm not so sure about that credibility anymore, FWIW (which may not be much).[/QUOTE]

Well, I am telling you where you can find the evidence that I have reviewed to draw that conclusion. The evidence is in his opinions on the DC Circuit. If you are not interested in reviewing those, that is your choice. But please don't act like I have some how failed in my task.

I have appreciated, though, your willingness to engage in a reasoned debate and seemingly to change your position as you gather more information. That is commendable. I look forward to more discussion.
 
And you've yet to tell me if you consider him to be a constitutional literalist or a more interpretive type.

I'll try to look around today, but I found out I am incredibly deep in work; I evidently have far more to do today than waste tax dollars.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And you've yet to tell me if you consider him to be a constitutional literalist or a more interpretive type.

I'll try to look around today, but I found out I am incredibly deep in work; I evidently have far more to do today than waste tax dollars.[/QUOTE]

I apologize for the "wasting tax dollars" cheap shot.

As between a strict constructionist and a "Ginsburg-esque expansionist," Judge Roberts is more the former than the latter. That is to say, he interprets the Constitution at a textual level, attempting to keep in mind the intent of the Framers.
 
Don't worry 'bout cheap shots.

Thanks for your thoughts; I can't say I'm thrilled to see another literalist (though it would have bothered me more had Rehnquist lived longer), but being a literalist doesn't disqualify one from being a justice.

Regrettably. ;)
 
Fox News Alert: John Roberts is a gentlemen

The daily show has been on fire lately with pointing out retarded things like this.
 
And so it begins.

Roberts' confirmation hearings begin today. Should be fun to watch. Wonder if there will be any fireworks?

My prediction: Confirmation as Chief Justice.
 
No one is interested in the confirmation hearings, huh? No one is interested in hearing Judge Roberts express his views? Or in the questions being asked?

Hmmm, I guess this just confirms my suspicion that all the naysayers were not interested in the merits, but rather in a knee-jerk reaction to another (albeit major) Bush appointment.

Kind of a disappointment, frankly.

PS If you ARE interested in listening and reaching an INFORMED opinion, go to www.npr.org and check it out live.
 
[quote name='sgs89']No one is interested in the confirmation hearings, huh? No one is interested in hearing Judge Roberts express his views? Or in the questions being asked?

Hmmm, I guess this just confirms my suspicion that all the naysayers were not interested in the merits, but rather in a knee-jerk reaction to another (albeit major) Bush appointment.

Kind of a disappointment, frankly.

PS If you ARE interested in listening and reaching an INFORMED opinion, go to www.npr.org and check it out live.[/QUOTE]


It is already a foregone conclusion that he will be confirmed and from what I've seen, he has not expressed his view on anything thus far and likely won't.
 
[quote name='niceguyshawne']It is already a foregone conclusion that he will be confirmed and from what I've seen, he has not expressed his view on anything thus far and likely won't.[/QUOTE]

A number of posters on here (read: Professor Murder) have indicated, though, that they would withhold judgment pending the confirmation process and "vigorous questioning." Now that this is happening, I am interested to hear their thoughts.

Professor Murder?
 
[quote name='niceguyshawne']It is already a foregone conclusion that he will be confirmed and from what I've seen, he has not expressed his view on anything thus far and likely won't.[/QUOTE]
Right.

I watched today for about 45 minutes, but then I realized that little-to-nothing of substance was actually being said. It was like I was listening to people talk about nothing in a language that I didn't know.
 
[quote name='sgs89']A number of posters on here (read: Professor Murder) have indicated, though, that they would withhold judgment pending the confirmation process and "vigorous questioning." Now that this is happening, I am interested to hear their thoughts.

Professor Murder?[/QUOTE]

I'm fuckin' busy, what? I'll get around to it. I can form an opinion now or a month from now. It won't have any bearing on his inevitable confirmation.

Nice of you to recommend npr, though.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm fuckin' busy, what? I'll get around to it. I can form an opinion now or a month from now. It won't have any bearing on his inevitable confirmation.

Nice of you to recommend npr, though.[/QUOTE]

More government-funded studies, huh?

NPR all the way, baby.
 
Well, I must admit that, from what I've read (90 pages of transcipts at NYT!!!, not that I've read near all of them), congress is battering him about abortion too much, giving off the appearance that they don't care about his qualifications, or even his positions; rather, it is just one position that they seem to care about: Roe V. Wade.

Roberts has shown himself to be courteous and a professional, though some of his answers are strangely avoidant. I raised my eyebrow at a few of his answers.

All in all, though, he's taking it like a champ, handling himself well, and most importantly (considering his discussion of stare decisis (sp?)), given the indication that he's not quick on the draw in making decisions that would be contrary to long-standing judicial precedents.

I'm still hesitant to say this, but it seems that, until congress gets off of abortion, I'm not gonna wade through 90 fuckin' pages of the same question worded differently. I will (hesitantly) concede that Roberts should be confirmed for a Supreme Court seat (I don't know enough to say he is de facto qualified for the Chief Justice chair, so I won't say either way). He had the academic qualifications, and he seems to be well suited for the position.

I dare say that Bush has made a good decision here. Time will tell if Roberts is a wolf in sheep's clothing (that is, if he's simply bullshitting all of us in the public and the government), and will eventually reveal himself to be a true Bush crony. I hope that is not the case, because that would damage the credibility and testimony of every single person following Roberts who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

I full expect that not to happen.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, I must admit that, from what I've read (90 pages of transcipts at NYT!!!, not that I've read near all of them), congress is battering him about abortion too much, giving off the appearance that they don't care about his qualifications, or even his positions; rather, it is just one position that they seem to care about: Roe V. Wade.

Roberts has shown himself to be courteous and a professional, though some of his answers are strangely avoidant. I raised my eyebrow at a few of his answers.

All in all, though, he's taking it like a champ, handling himself well, and most importantly (considering his discussion of stare decisis (sp?)), given the indication that he's not quick on the draw in making decisions that would be contrary to long-standing judicial precedents.

I'm still hesitant to say this, but it seems that, until congress gets off of abortion, I'm not gonna wade through 90 fuckin' pages of the same question worded differently. I will (hesitantly) concede that Roberts should be confirmed for a Supreme Court seat (I don't know enough to say he is de facto qualified for the Chief Justice chair, so I won't say either way). He had the academic qualifications, and he seems to be well suited for the position.

I dare say that Bush has made a good decision here. Time will tell if Roberts is a wolf in sheep's clothing (that is, if he's simply bullshitting all of us in the public and the government), and will eventually reveal himself to be a true Bush crony. I hope that is not the case, because that would damage the credibility and testimony of every single person following Roberts who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

I full expect that not to happen.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your insightful thoughts. I really do commend you (for whatever that is worth) for taking the time to reach an informed judgment about this issue. Early on, you seemed to "rush to judgment" because Judge Roberts was a Bush appointee. It is admirable that you would take the time to become better informed and change your views.

Your point about a "wolf in sheep's clothing" is valid -- we do not know for sure whether Judge Roberts will continue to comport himself in the manner he has to date. But, I agree with you that it seems unlikely he will all of a sudden change his stripes.

I recommend that you read/listen to the hearings -- not all of it had to do with abortion. There were many interesting exchanges on the Commerce Clause (Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce), Brown v. The Board of Education (end of the "separate but equal" doctrine), and the First Amendment.

While Judge Roberts certainly did not answer all questions, he has been much more forthcoming than many previous SCOTUS nominees. You understand that, as a matter of judicial ethics, a SCOTUS nominee should not discuss particular cases (or legal issues) likely to come before the Court.

And, remember, we will have this to do all over again in relatively short order. I can't wait!
 
Actually, Feinstein has been the one most pressing him on abortion. If you ignore her lines of questioning you can probably ignore most of the abortion stuff.

And I think, sgs89, that some of the Democratic senators would disagree with you about Roberts being extraordinarily forthcoming.

Personally, I think he comes off as someone highly intelligent and obviously imminently qualified. I just hope he lives up to expectations. And yes, he'll be easily confirmed. I think everyone knows that at this point.
 
Give Judge Roberts some credit for his humor, as revealed by this exchange:

SCHUMER: [T]his process is getting a little more absurd the further we move. You agree we should be finding out your philosophy and method of legal reasoning, modesty, stability, but when we try to find out what modesty and stability mean, what your philosophy means, we don't get any answers.

It's as if I asked you: What kind of movies do you like? Tell me two or three good movies. And you say, I like movies with good acting. I like movies with good directing. I like movies with good cinematography. And I ask you, No, give me an example of a good movie. You don't name one. I say, Give me an example of a bad movie. You won't name one. Then I ask you if you like Casablanca, and you respond by saying, Lots of people like 'Casablanca.' (LAUGHTER) You tell me it's widely settled that Casablanca is one of the great movies.

SPECTER: Senator Schumer, now that your time is over, are you asking him a question?

SCHUMER: Yes. (LAUGHTER) I am saying, sir -- I am making a plea here. I hope we're going to continue this for a while, that within the confines of what you think is appropriate and proper, you try to be a little more forthcoming with us in terms of trying to figure out what kind of justice you will become.

SPECTER: We will now take a 15-minute break, reconvene at 4:25.

ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, could I address some of the...

SPECTER: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I didn't hear any question, Judge Roberts...

ROBERTS: Well, there were several along the way... I'll be very succinct.

SPECTER: You are privileged to comment. This is coming out of his next round, if there is one. (LAUGHTER)

ROBERTS: First, Dr. Zhivago and North By Northwest... (LAUGHTER)
 
As far as I can see, the only real thing that's come out of these hearings is that there's an absolutely stunning number of ways to say "I refuse to answer that question." If being able to avoid ever answering any question is a good quality in a Supreme Court justice, then Roberts is more than qualified. Aside from that, I don't think anyone knows any more about Roberts than they did going into this.
 
North by Northwest is a classic.

Something that concerns me isn't what Roberts is saying or implying, but the lack of reaction instead. It seems very strange to me that Roberts (from what I've read, anyway) isn't getting *any* shit from the right in regards to his discussion on privacy rights (which is all, in the end, coded discourse for abortion rights).

This nominee and the next nominee are the Republicans Party's major chance to overturn Roe v. Wade, and many of them would love nothing more than doing just that. Abandoning my opinions for a moment, it seems very awkward to me that Roberts' passive acceptance of Roe v. Wade as a standing legal precedent, his view on privacy rights, and other comments seem to indicate that he will *not* be the golden boy to make abortion illegal again are all strangely met with silence by vocal opponents of abortion rights.

Comparing that to the Republican outlash at those such as Arlen Specter, who embraced embryonic stem cell research (or federal funding of it, anyway) earlier this year. Without a doubt, Roberts will have far more power as Chief Justice than Specter currently does, and the implications of his placement on enforcing right-wing ideology (in the sense of his judicial interpretations, anyway) are far greater. So, the apparent lack of outrage on those people (no matter how large or small, they're *always* some of the most vocal) who specifically want Roe v. Wade to be overturned is fascinating, and truly, kind of disturbing.

Just a thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top