Home / Roberts Nomination Confounds the Left

Roberts Nomination Confounds the Left

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The left is looking for anything to derail President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, John Roberts. They appear to be grasping at straws as anyone but the shrillest lefties like Barbara Boxer and Teddy Kennedy are saying Roberts is a stand up guy, bright and qualified. Some are now saying there will not be a filibuster to block his appointment.

What a stroke of genius by President Bush, who confounds his detractors as they underestimate him once again.

Looking at the MSM, there are some examples of weak attempts to cast some negative light on Roberts.

Alan Colmes, the liberal on the Hannity and Colmes show on Fox News, interviewed David Boies, former attorney for Al Gore during the 2000 presidential election. Colmes was expecting Boies to join him in painting Roberts as unfit to serve, but to Alan’s dismay, he wouldn’t cooperate.

Colmes: How big of a role did Judge Roberts play in the recount and will it hurt his chances of becoming a Supreme Court justice?” Did you know Judge Roberts in Florida, in Tallahassee during that process?

Boies: He was a Republican lawyer, I was representing the Democratic side, but the fact that he was down there representing the Republicans in that election ought to have no bearing.

Colmes: I agree, (sure you do-ed) I’d rather have you on the Court, that means you could be on the Court. He advised behind the scenes, he didn’t even sign anything in kind of a stealth manner. That makes him a partisan.

Boies: It wasn’t a stealth manner, there wasn’t anything to sign, nobody signed anything, I didn’t sign anything. Everybody down there was representing a client.

The Los Angeles Times ran an article today about Robert’s wife, stating:

While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.’s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.

A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization – Feminists for Life of America – that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.

I thought the left was the champion of feminism, and was militant about women being their own person, not existing in the shadow of their husbands. Apparently that only counts for women on the plantation.

Another Times writer Maura Reynolds points out the conundrum.

Senate Democrats, after months of preparing for a full-scale fight with President Bush over a Supreme Court nominee, found themselves Wednesday instead weighing whether or how to battle his choice of John G. Roberts Jr.

The problem Democrats face is that Roberts, a well-known Washington lawyer before becoming a federal appellate court judge in 2003, appears to be more conservative than they would like but less ideological than they had feared.

If Senate Democrats put on a circus of opposition, they will further marginalize the Democratic Party. Many more Americans will see them for what they really are.

Powered by

About SactoDan

  • billy

    we are just waiting til after rove and libby are frog marched. then well fillibuster this fool.

  • Bennett

    Frankly, if the quotes you provide are all that’s out there in opposition to Judge Roberts, you are making a mountain out of nothing, in order to vilify “the left”. Almost everything I’ve read or heard is not controversial or partisan at all.

    And WTF is this supposed to mean?

    “I thought the left was the champion of feminism, and was militant about women being their own person, not existing in the shadow of their husbands. Apparently that only counts for women on the plantation.”

    It doesn’t even connect to anything else in your post! I guess you had an overpowering need to write “plantation”…

    What? Slow news day in your town?


  • billy

    “I thought the left was the champion of feminism, and was militant about women being their own person, ”

    sorry you cant call a radical anti abortion woman who works against women’s rights to choose a feminist.

    its sort of an oxymoron. “anti abortion feminist”

  • I haven’t heard any Democra-whining over Roberts.

  • GPW

    If “anti-abortion feminist” is an oxymoron, then such notable Feminist Foremothers as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Marry Wollstonecraft were not feminists. Talk about an oxymoron: “Non-Feminist Feminist Foremothers.” Go here for relevant quotes: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/22/190909.php. Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, went so far as to say, “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

  • whatever

    > haven’t heard any Democra-whining over Roberts.

    So, you don’t read the news. Read what Boxer said today in California.

  • Yeah whatever, those Democrats are just stomping their feet at this guy (St. Petersburg Times, Boxer’s quote emboldened just for you):

    Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said he is “a credible nominee.” Sen. Barbara Boxer of California described him as “a very affable individual.” Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said he “has outstanding legal credentials and an appropriate legal temperament and demeanor.”

    What outrageous crying! They should be nicer to him!