Supreme Court Nominee

[attyfan]

Tuesday night, Bush will announce his nominee to replace
Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/)

[Krista]

This is sad, but my first thought is "they'd better not interrupt Rock Star. grrrrrrrrrr

[kwanfanatic2002]

This will be the first time in history that a sitting justice will serve with another justice that he once clerked for. Judge Roberts once clerked for Rehnquist. I think that is awesome.

[Krista]

I think its interesting that Ann Coulter doesn't like the choice. hehe

[ladybugs]

I think it is interesting, like you say Kwanfanatic, that John Roberts, who clerked with Rehnquist, will be also be serving on the Supreme Court together. I don't know too much about John Roberts, but I trust President Bush and I am happy Bush didn't get swayed by the democrats. It is interesting how they already are coming out and trying to find reasons to fault Bush's decision. I hope John Roberts gets a fair chance at the final approval.

[Krista]

Actually republicans aren't all happy as well. I personally was hoping for someone close to the center and a woman. But that was like hoping for rain in the sahara during dry season, with Bush.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Ladybugs, me too.!!!. He sounds like a great man and my husband and I were listening to Hugh Hewitt last night, along with bloggers from Powerline who actually kwow Roberts and they are very happy about his nomination. Hugh and the guy from Powerline have both worked with as attorneys and said some really good things about him. Hugh sounded giddy about the nomination. I take words from someone who actually knows him and has worked him in the past, a lot more seriously than a Senator who has a beef with him.

It was not even 5 minutes before Schumer and his cohorts were blasting him. I am excited that Bush did not cave and nominate someone like what the left was pushing for.

I was hoping mayne he would nominate a woman, as was Laura, but it sounds like he made the right choice. I like what I have heard about him so far.

[olympic]

As an Appellate lawyer during the reign of King George I back in the early 90s, he argued to strike down Roe v. Wade, but some felt he was just towing the Administration's line and didn't actually feel that way. Upon confirmation of his appointment to the DC Federal Court of Appeals in 2003, he said that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and he wouldn't work to outlaw abortion. So, before you Conservatives start breaking out the Champagne, just hold up......

His record is pretty short. It sounds like he won't be a Conservative Activist on the Supreme Court, but I'd like to hear his answers to the questions the Senate will ask him in September

[kwanluv]

Good point Olympic
This will be the first time in history that a sitting justice will serve with another justice that he once clerked for.He isn't confirmed yet.

My agree with DMBChic. The Supreme court needs to be balanced, and a woman or latino "centrist" choice would have been nice to see, but alas....

[4dogknight]

I'm with Olympic on this:
His record is pretty short. It sounds like he won't be a Conservative Activist on the Supreme Court, but I'd like to hear his answers to the questions the Senate will ask him in September

4dk - who wonders what happened with all that looking at minorities and women rhetoric because we did after all wind up with white bread.

[probativev]

4dk - who wonders what happened with all that looking at minorities and women rhetoric because we did after all wind up with white bread.

Ok, there is no love lost between me and the Bush Administration. But I'm going to come to Bush's defense on this one. The Bush Administration has been one of the most diverse I've ever seen. They've exceeded the Democrats on diversity to the extent that I think it's totally embarrassing for the Democrats. We currently have a Hispanic Attorney General, an Asian woman Secretary of Labor, an African American woman Secretary of State, and a woman leading the EPA. And these are just the readily identifiable ones. It would have been nice to see a woman or minority Supreme Court nominee, and I was really hoping for that. But OTOH, nominating a white man for the Court doesn't negate the diversity record of this administration.

I disagree with just about everything this administration is doing, but as a minority myself, I have to say that the Bush Administration's diversity record is no rhetoric. What pisses me off is that people who for years and years complaint about lack of diversity, and when they do get it, they don't even acknowledge it because the minorities are not the "right" kind of minorities.

Anyhow, be careful what you ask for. I don't know enough about Roberts, but you could've gotten another Clarence Thomas, or worse yet, Janice Rogers Brown. With Bush in office, those who support diversity and minority/women's rights will just have to make a choice between the "wrong" kind of minorities, or a white bread who may at least be less harmful to their interest. A double-edged sword I'm sure. Bush's never going to nominate a liberal, or even moderate minority or woman to offend his base.

[Krista]

Thats very true about the diversity. Bush has had a very diverse cabinet. I wish it had been a woman though, considering they're replacing a woman. Ah well.

[4dogknight]

Probative - there is no doubt that the administration is diverse, and I mean that in the nicest possible way but I wonder how much of that is for show and how much is because GW believes in it.

The various and sundry media statements and quotes this past week seemed, at least to me, as nothing more than lip service and that includes the quotes by Laura as wanting to see a woman as a SC nominee.

I don't know enough about this nominee to offer an opinion one way or another at this time; however I have received a number of e-mails on this subject from organizations whose opinions I value.

I'm sure we will be treated to more than enough information about this nominee in the coming weeks, if for nothing more than to keep the Valerie Plame coverage on the back burner.

4dk

[attyfan]

When confirmed for the DC court of appeals, Roberts said that he would faithfully follow Roe v. Wade; the fact that he wrote a brief for a client asking that the case be reversed does not necessarily reflect his personal opinion (he explained the brief by comparing himself to John Adams, defending the British after the Boston Massacre -- what Adams said as advocates for his clients did not reflect his personal opinons.)

[Krista]

The various and sundry media statements and quotes this past week seemed, at least to me, as nothing more than lip service and that includes the quotes by Laura as wanting to see a woman as a SC nominee.

Laura is much more towards the center than Bush is. I believe her. She is also pro choice.

[kwanluv]

ProbativeV -
I hear what you're saying and to some extent, I do agree with you. That said, I seriously doubt many of the "diverse" people in his charge represent the values of their respective race. But that's another discussion. :lol

After all, most black people do not like or identify with Condi Rice at all. That's just common knowledge. ;)


DMBChic -
Yes, Laura is pro-choice and shortly after Bush was selected in 2000 she acknowledged that fact on the Today show, but afterwords, team Bush was doing damage control and Laura was tucked away from the public until 2004. :\

[Lanternlight]

I wonder how much of that is for show and how much is because GW believes in it.

Ding ding ding

I do believe you've gotten to the very heart of the issue.

Bush administration policies are friendliest towards white men. Anyone else recall that photo of Bush and a bunch of smiling white dudes standing around him while Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban?

Corporate executives? Pretty pale bunch. They've done just great under Bush. K street lobbyists? It's been a bonanza.

As for the nominee himself, it could have been much worse. Whatever. It's not like he was ever going to nominate a moderate, so I'm just relieved it wasn't someone much worse.

[moxie]

Probative - there is no doubt that the administration is diverse, and I mean that in the nicest possible way but I wonder how much of that is for show and how much is because GW believes in it.

Also, I haven't seen much evidence that Bush actually uses his Cabinet to guide his decisions. For that, he turns to his white-boy inner circle, with Cheney and Rove at the top of the list.

[pbluu]

Bushie says that he can't stand these activist judges (lefty ones) but yet he is nominating a pretty conservative one who is anti choice. Also, much of his experience is spent on defending clients so we don't really know how he really makes his decisions.

We do know, however that he is a big supporter of the GOP.

Let's hope that who ever is nominated, that person will interprets the law instead of making the laws. And that person will also preserves and expands a person's rights instead of limiting and reducing, which the GOP are trying to do right now.

[probativev]

Bush administration policies are friendliest towards white men. Anyone else recall that photo of Bush and a bunch of smiling white dudes standing around him while Bush signed the partial birth abortion ban? Corporate executives? Pretty pale bunch. They've done just great under Bush. K street lobbyists? It's been a bonanza.

True true. The thing though is I don't think that reflects the Bush's administration's attitude toward women or minorities. It reflects the interests that are behind the Bush agenda: ie big corporate money, oil, and the religious right which are the Administration's political base. If women and minorities dominate corporate executive levels and big corporation, oil industry, and the religions right fraction, I think the Bush Admin would be just as friendly to them. What we got is a problem not limited to government. Problem is the complete and total lack of women and minorities who rise to the corporate executive level. And of course, we know who dominates the religious right movement: radically conservative white men. What I'm trying to say is that the political policy is less racial and gender motivated, than political money motivated. It doesn't seem to me that the Bush Admin is as exclusive of minorities as past administrations.

As to whether it is for show, maybe, maybe not. But either way, as a minority I think even for show is very important because they are powerful images, especially for the younger generation growing up. I think the women and minorities being in his cabinet positions are still a break of certain racial and gender barriers. Girls and minority children can see that it is possible for them to reach the top, and that to me is something important. I remember a story when Dr. Martin Luther King told Nichelle Nichols of the original Star Trek series to stay on in her role even though she was miserable because she felt that all she was there for was for show. She never got any substantive acting in that role. But Dr. King reminded her that thousands of black Americans look up to her in that role as someone who was intelligent and equal to the rest of the crew. I'm not advocating that women and minorities take positions just for show. But progress doesn't happen over night. And the first step is for women and minorities to actually be in those roles. I think it is important for the public to get used to seeing women and minorities in the Presidential cabinet positions. And after all, Clinton didn't break these barriers even though he must have had 100 times more number qualified women and minorities in his party to choose from. He tried during his first time and then didn't really listen to the few women and minorities he appointed either. Whatever little he did was all for show too. By his second term he all but dismissed everyone of them in favor of his white boys. Is it possible to then give the Bush Administration a little credit just to be fair minded?

It is true that Bush listens to some of the cabinet members, and not others. Bush was openly ignorant of Christine Whitman when she was EPA director. But OTOH it's hard to argue that Condi Rice isn't often running the show when it comes to foreign policies. Gayle Norton (*****) isn't being ignored, but that's because she's about 10 times worse than Bush.


As for the photo op on the signing of partial abortion ban...yeah that was really bad. I don't disagree that this administration is not women or minority friendly when it comes to the policies. But the original point was about diversity in appointment, not policies. I was only speaking to the issue of diversity.

[EigthAv]

From what I have heard so far,I like Roberts.The Supreme Court needs some new blood.Before O'Conner stepped down,I think the average age was 110. 50 isn't exactly a spring chicken,but does represent a different generation......mine :D

[kwanluv]

Before O'Conner stepped down,I think the average age was 110:lol :lol

[rbpier]

That said, I seriously doubt many of the "diverse" people in his charge represent the values of their respective race. But that's another discussion.

I am black and a female and Condi and the other African Americans in the Bush Admin absolutely represent my and many many of my other minority friend’s views. I believe Bush got a shocking 18% of the African American vote in CA of all places!

Plus, diversity is not about blocking minorities that have different opinions. It is about treating a minority as a person and not looking at thier skin color. Every administration selects people who share the views of the administration. The diversity shows that Bush selects the best qualified regardless of their ethnicity, not because of their ethnicity. All of his ethnic selections are unquestionably some of the best qualified in the nation (among those consistent with his views) for their jobs.

[Krista]

I believe Bush doesn't just have these people there as tokens for his administration. He has said how much he respects Condoleeza(whome also worked with his father). She really is an extremely intelligent and strong person, and an asset to this administration.

[olympic]

Before I sign on to the Condi et al lovefest, there's something that needs to be addressed.

It has been pontificated by many-a-Political-Wonk in the news that the bump for Bush in 2004 among African American Voters was due to the Gay Marriage Amendments on ballots in about 11 states. Minority Churchgoers can be just as Socially Conservative as the WASPy Milquetoasts that attend the Evangelical Suburban Mega-Churches, even if they traditionally vote for a different party. I'm not so sure if Bush truly represents the ideal of "everyone equal" by appointing Minorities, or just cynically plays one minority against another (The African American churchgoer vs. Gays for example) to tear down the Democrats' traditional bases. Looking at this administration, I'd guess the latter:rolleyes

[Krista]

Even if the worst case scenario is true....its still better than any democratic administration has done. Condoleeza and the rest of these people aren't gagged from saying what they think, and I honestly can't see them being that stupid that they wouldn't know they were being used if that were the case(which it isn't). They're on the inside, and they're very educated people. How can you claim to know better than them, what their position is and how they are being utilized. All you know is what the media(any media, conservative or liberal) tells you(unless you're in politics or in washington etc). You could say I don't know better either, because Im not there, but no one is forcing those people to be in the Bush administration. They're there because they want to be. Im not a huge fan of this administration anymore, but there's logic and illogic. And to say that the administration is using them to get back at the democrats(when any other time people are claiming Bush is an idiot. how would he be smart enough to know how to do this?) is illogical. Just my 2 cents.....ok so maybe it was 50 cents :p

[ladybugs]

Rbpier - I couldn't have said it any better. I agree with you 100%. I think Condi is very smart, intelligent and I am thankful she is the secretary of state. I think Pres. Bush is picking the best. :RB

[manskater]

DMBchic -- I do not believe that Colin Powell was always permitted to speak his mind. Colin Powell was one of the main members of this White House who I felt was kept out of the inner circle i.e. Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush because he did not always carry the "party" or this particular White House' line. Condi and the others imo just followed the scripts set out by this White House on any of the domestic or foreign policies.

[Krista]

Thats true manskater. He ended up leaving, possibly for that reason(who knows, he may write a book about it later) But the ones that are there, choose to be. Condoleeza speaks to the press ALOT on issues. She knows what is going on and she is utilized for her experience and intelligence. Im guessing that you're are referring to scripts by ....Rove or Rumsfeld? Unless you think Bush is intelligent enough to actually have scripts and schemes. Honestly Rumsfeld looks annoyed with it all anymore. I don't see him plotting for anything. He looks like after this term is over, he'll be ready to leave politics. But who knows. Rove I don't know that much about, so I can't say whether he's back there with alterior motives or not.

[kwanluv]

Rbpier

I have many African American friends who can't stand Condi, and lost all respect for Colin after he just became a mouthpiece for the Admin before we invaded Iraq. I have no opinion on Condi myself. I know Bush has a lot of respect for her, that's clear, otherwise she wouldn't be in her current position.

There will be differing opinions in any group, to be sure. I'm gay, and I know a gay man who voted for Bush...now that's a self hatred attitude, and would be similar to an African American who would support segregation. So it takes all kinds.

My point is the majority general opinion of most all minority groups is still to support a Democrat. Democrats have been and continue to be the ones that have always supported civil rights & liberties. That's just fact.


olympic, Another excellent point

Rove is all about political strategies to divide and confuse, and especially to play groups against one another. There's a good reason why anti-gay propositions were on the ballot for 11 key states. That strategy has really worked, because it appears more people in this country are more interested in issues like who should or should not be allowed to marry, and who should live on life support machines rather than unimportant issues like social security, the economy, the environment and our GLOBAL community....go figure. :rolleyes

[rbpier]

Actually if you look at the history of civil rights, it was the Republicans that always supported minorities and the Southern Democrats that kept trying to block equality.

Look up the voting histories of the 60's and all the way back to the fact that the Republican party organized initially around a desire to get rid of slavery and Republicans where the ones registering Blacks to vote while the Dems where threatening them.

I believe Dems want to keep me downtrodden and oppressed and dependent while the Reps offer a sense of self-esteem and a respect for my abilities as a person and a control over my own life and future. So I take offense at you labeling minorities supporting Reps as self hatred when people apparently just have a different opinion as to what is best to move our race forward and the numbers of blacks moving toward the Rep party and slowly but surely growing.

[kwanluv]

I'm gay, and I know a gay man who voted for Bush...now that's a self hatred attitudeThat's what I said, I was talking about that one man, and it's true. Why would a gay man in a relationship support a president who doesn't support legalizing his relationship? He complains about it, yet he voted for him...Sorry, but that's self hatred (lol).


rbpier,
I'm glad you have such a positive view of what the Rebublican party offers you. That's great, and you are welcome to have that view.

but consider..

I for one would never support a president or party that regards me as a second class citizen.

We're above that these days, don't you think?

How would you feel if Bush was against African Americans getting married? You'd be pretty upset I'd suspect.

Well, Blacks in America have had their struggle, and have fought hard to overcome it, and are still fighting to overcome it.

The Gay struggle is just heating up.

I don't understand how anyone, especially a minority, could support a president or party that can regard an entire group of people as second class. But hey, different strokes.


*edited to add*

I apologize for steering this thread off-topic. I'll get off my soap box now...lol

[manskater]

As a gay/black/hispanic I hardly find the Democratic party as the party wanting to keep me downtrodden. I have always supported dems/libs and I think it is offensive to label all dems that way. As far as I can see many republicans or the ones in power seem to be bent on dividing this country and hamper whatever progress has been made by minorities in this country.

Kwanluv - I so agree with you.-- I know this country is made up of diverse opinions however its very hard for me to understand how a gay man or woman can vote for Bush.

[rbpier]

Back on the Condi issue, she has always taken very conservative positions even while the Provost (or President?) at Stanford. Her positions there were sometime controversial since that is such a liberal school. I also heard her speak and she has always been a conservative Rep. She spoke about how she got this from her father. So, yes, I doubt she is just going along with Bush, I think what she is doing and saying reflects her own opinions. Let's also not forget that she was the one that helped Bush develop his approach to foreign policy also.

[olympic]

Rbpier,

I almost choked when I read your earlier post. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So, Democrats were keeping you down and Republicans were trying to liberate you in the 1960s?? Right. First of all the audacious Democrat Harry Truman integrates the Armed Forces in 1948. Then, horrible President Kennedy pushing the Civil Rights bill before his untimely death was just the worst! And how about his terrible successor, Lyndon B. Johnson from Texas, who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, practically causing a riot in the South. Why don't you ask the Republican from South Carolina Strom Thurmond what he was doing during these years? Or why he changed to the Republican Party? It wasn't due to sudden enlightenment, I'll tell you that much!

Should I go on? Republican Candidate Richard Nixon in 1968 peeled White Southerners away from the Democrats. How? Championing "States Rights." What is that you ask? That title was a cover word for a way to tap into the growing backlash in the White South against the integration of schools, equal rights movement, Martin Luther King's "rabble-rousing", etc.

So yes, You're right. The Republicans had their hand extended to minorities :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[rbpier]

Johnson signed the Civil Rights act because the Reps in Congress passed it over Dem objections. Go look at the past votes by party not by which pres signed it. The Reps were the ones pushing for rights and freedoms for blacks over the objections of the Dems and while you are questioning Thurmond why don't you ask why Byrd a former KKK was a Dem Senator until he decided to retire.

The Republican Party that was specifically started to end the evils of slavery and free Blacks. It was the Democratic Party that was the pro-slavery Party.

Please read these links to see many specific examples, too numerous to list here of the legislation submitted by the Reps that Dem voted against.

Couple of Quick Quotes from article
"History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party.

Congressional records show that Democrats were opposed to passing the following laws that were introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

Civil Rights Act 1866
Reconstruction Act of 1867
Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
Enforcement Act of 1870
Force Act of 1871
Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960

And during the 60's many Democrats fought hard to defeat the

1964 Civil Rights Act
1965 Voting Rights Acts
1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

Lot of other good stuff in this article so please read it before you respond.

www.sclagop.org/a_democrat_by_design_or_a_deception.htm (http://www.sclagop.org/a_democrat_by_design_or_a_deception.htm)

And I believe the current policies of the Reps are also better for AA than what the Dems offer. We can all agree that we want certain problems resolved but there can be different ways of solving them and the Dem policies have created the problems for me and many of my Rep AA friends while the policies espoused by the Reps offer a better choice for us.

[olympic]

Read the article. It's interesting. I think the Democrats obstinately opposing equal rights for all those years were from the South. So I think this shows the state of mind of the South, not the Democratic Party. The Democrats unfortunately tolerated this behavior in order to win elections, but despite what was in that article, I think that good men like JFK, Truman, and LBJ were concerned about civil rights. It was this Reverend's opinion based on his research

To give you an idea of why I think it's the region of the country more than any party: Right now, Republicans controlling the South are setting an anti-Gay agenda. It's OK for the Republican Governor of Texas to tell Gay Military veterans to leave Texas, or to introduce legislation in Alabama or Oklahoma to yank certain Gay books from bookshelves, and the usual blockade of Gay Rights legislation and of course all the Constitutional Amendments to make sure I NEVER have marriage equality. Moderate Republicans seem to be tolerating them on a National level to win elections, which is awful like Democrats tolerating Racist Southern Democrats to win elections.

I know I'm off on a tangent, but I was trying to make a point as to why I'm very cynical about the Repubs. It hits home for me:(

[Sparks]

I think the Democrats obstinately opposing equal rights for all those years were from the South. So I think this shows the state of mind of the South, not the Democratic Party. The Democrats unfortunately tolerated this behavior in order to win elections, but despite what was in that article, I think that good men like JFK, Truman, and LBJ were concerned about civil rights.
Good point.
Here is a bit of trivia:
When LBJ (who pushed Congress into passing the voting right acts) signed Voting Rights into law, he said, "This is going to turn the South against the Democratic party for a generation".
That did indeed happen...for more than a generation, I'm afraid.

[moxie]

Yes ... part of the reason the Republican party has been so successful (just look at a map of all the red states) is that most white Southerners opposed to civil rights & integration switched from Democratic to Republican.

[EigthAv]

Minority Churchgoers can be just as Socially Conservative as the WASPy Milquetoasts that attend the Evangelical Suburban Mega-Churches, even if they traditionally vote for a different party.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->So if one is African American cool...........quaint,but if one is European American.............milquetoast???Why not just say cracker? I find this to be an offensive statement.I've seen the huge-big evangelical churchs on television.Looks like "colours of the rainbow" to me.Ther is only one God and she doesn't discriminate.This whole thing of considering anyone who doesn't share your specific political opinions and voting habits to be ignorant is a copout.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty was a huge failure.It increased the poverty roles and led the way to entitlement addiction.He seemed to believe you could just throw enough money at the problem and it would go away.There are people today who think you can throw enough money at our public school systems and we will surely have a more intelligent society.All the money in World can't make a kid do the work.All the free rent in World won't place you closer to ownership.The hands of greed can sniff the money from miles away and will seize any opportunity to exploit big money programmes for their own profits.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->Get off your butt......do the work.....save some money up..........own things and stop supporting the rental lords,pawn shoppe barrons and ez-credit ripoff kings.It's not a "black thang" or a "white thang". I was shocked to learn that one of my own daughters had rented a clothes dryer.After all the time I spent trying to teach her all about how cash and carry beats rentals and the ez-credit ripoffs to death.She does have a good job,works her butt off for the money and I hate to see her caught up in America's rental/credit games.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->How did we go from Roberts to the race cards and ez-credit ripoffs???? :lol Is Al Sharpton hiding behind this board?:eek

[olympic]

Mike,

You're right about the colors of the Rainbow thing....... only to a certain extent, though...I still don't think those Evangelical Superchurches are quite representative of the ethnic makeup of this country. I grew up in a Fundie household, not just parents but Aunts and Uncles et al. Believe me. They have the same fears and prejudices as everyone. The reason why they may get more ridicule from a lib/Progressive like me is because they think that since they are "saved", they can act anyway they want, and push legislation they want to ensure people NOT like them get the shaft. I've never seen Gays for example push Legislation to make sure Evangelicals can't act like Evangelicals in Public

[Krista]

They have the same fears and prejudices as everyone. The reason why they may get more ridicule from a lib/Progressive like me is because they think that since they are "saved", they can act anyway they want, and push legislation they want to ensure people NOT like them get the shaft.

I live in NC, and I see that all the time. "oh if you're saved, you can be a complete numpty and still jump into Jesus's loving arms when you die" heh. So irritating. And I have nothing against Christians(just baptists.........KIDDING!) because I am one. The ones that go around acting rude because they are "saved" are the same ones that will tell you "the end is near!"(which someone told me about 5 yrs ago, and Im still waiting)

Anyhow, just rambling :p

[kwanfanatic2002]

What a joke.!!!!!!. They should all be fired and sent packign to France. They have sunk to a new low. The left is so utterly jealous and pathetic. They have no shame at all, have proven they will do anything to get a vote.

Charmaine Yoest has sunk to the bottom of the barrell. SHe has a lot of company down there. She is accusing Roberts of being "gay" because he wore "plaid pants" thirty years ago.!!!!. A lot of golfers wear plaid pants, does that make them gay also. In this blog the writer also says that some of the left are saying that Roberts son is gay also.!!!. The kid is 4 years old. 4 yrs old. Pathetic and sickening.

I said this was going to happen. THe left cannot handle that they do not have a liberal coming on the bench. They wanted to legislate their laws thru the courts because they thought that was all they had left and now they have lost that. I find it amusing watching them squirm. They are all sick.

ALso, In the Wa Po section called "Style', reporter Robin Givhan (I'm using that term loosely). said the Roberts family dressed too well. That is so ridiculous.If they hadn't dressed up, the reporters would be writing about how badly they dressed. If he was a liberal, the reporter would be praising the family for their fashion sense and how well they dress. The reporters are making fools of themselves.

[probativev]

I live in NC, and I see that all the time. "oh if you're saved, you can be a complete numpty and still jump into Jesus's loving arms when you die" heh. So irritating. And I have nothing against Christians(just baptists.........KIDDING!) because I am one. The ones that go around acting rude because they are "saved" are the same ones that will tell you "the end is near!"(which someone told me about 5 yrs ago, and Im still waiting)


"numpty"...I've never heard that word before. cool word! And as the "the end is near", In one Law & Order episode, a nutcase said the same thing when Lenny & partner arrested him. Lenny said "End is near, that's great. I usually am just waiting for the end of the week."

Well, it is finally Friday, so the end is near! Hooray!

Ok seriously. I way I see this argument going, everyone's argument is valid because they all have truths to them. The problem is that one truth does not discount the other truth. Goes to show that the world is just not that simple and not so black and white (no pun intended).

[kwanfanatic2002]

Kwanluv, I just find that rephrensible and shameless. They have nothing bad to report on, so they attack their clothing!!!. I heard on either Inside Edition or The Insider, that the clothes that the little boy had on (including shoes) cost approx. $450.00.!!! He's a 4 yr old boy. That was at a botique and they did not say that the Roberts bought the clothes there... but if puchased there would cost that much.
That is ridiculous. I would not spend that much money on a 4 yrs old clothes. I wish I could afford to spend that much money on myself. I would like to have a different pair of shoes for everyday of the year and different clothes for everyday, but I didn't even spend that much money on my wedding dress.

If I could go somewhere, i would go to Scotland or Switzerland or Austria.

Probative, how are you liking the Texas heat?? I hate it and I'm ready for winter. I want to bypass fall completely.
(I know this is off topis-- sorry about that, but it is just excruciatingly hot this summer. 108-110 w/ the heat index).

[kwanluv]

And as far as the media in general goes...I happen to think most all of it is rephrensible and shameless. The general media lost its integrity long, long ago and is now for the most part a large group of self-important talking heads on both sides spinning actual news to serve their own agendas.

If I could go somewhere, i would go to Scotland or Switzerland or Austria.I happen to agree with you :eek See, there is hope for us all....

[olympic]

Kwanfanatic,

Whoa! What's wrong with France? And if you're going to Switzerland, they just legalized Civil Unions for Gay people. Won't you as a conservative have a heart attack over something like that?? :rollin JK (kinda) Also, don't lump everyone on the left together because of one reporter. On face value from what you reported, I would find what was said petty. But the media has no scruples..it's not a Left thing

[kwanfanatic2002]

Wow, I agree with you wholeheartedly. :) :D :eek kwanluv. I have to admit the left is not the only one to blame. I know the Conservatives do it as well. I just get really angry when they try and destroy innoncent good people. Judge Roberts sounds like he is a really good man. I don't know a lot about him, other than what I am hearing and reading since his nomination was announced.

His wife is part of a feminsts group that is pro life and she serves on the board (if I am not mistaken about that) with Patricia Heaton.. from "Everybody Loves Raymond."

[ladybugs]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the last time I checked it was our Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who, if my memory serves me right, was the one who freed the slaves. Go check, oh, just in case you can't remember. And wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who had slaves working for him, and wasn't it our Democratic President, William "Jefferson" Clinton, a big admirer of Thomas Jefferson? So how can someone point the finger at Republicans? You can't make a collective judgement on a single party now, can you?

Oh and by the way, if you are going to talk about racisim, then check up on Franklin Roosevelt. He did not allow any Jewish people to work for him and sent a boat filled with Jewish people that was trying to arrive in America, back to Europe where they faced certain death in the concentration camps.

That's all I have to say.

P.S. I am white and my best neighbors were black people. Very sweet, decent, respectful, religious, good people. :SS

[kwanfanatic2002]

Ladybugs, good post. They will find a way to blame Republicans though. Funny how those little facts get in the way of their partisan views and facts.

One of my favorite patients at work are African American and even Democrats. They did however vote for Bush though. They cannot vote for someone who favors abortion. They both said their party left them a long time ago. They are two of the nicest people. I always laugh when I am with them. They are very religous, intelligent, educated and basically all around good people. I am so happy for them, now they are parents to a brand new son and daughter.

[Krista]

If I could go somewhere, i would go to Scotland or Switzerland or Austria.

Same here kwanfanatic and kwanluv. Send me back to Scotland!! I loved it there. The UK in general. I'd go anywhere in Europe though. Somewhere there is more culture and the history is older. I guess the grass is always greener though, although I don't know many europeans that want to live in the US, personally.

[kwanluv]

:eek :lol

Well heck, I guess I'm a member of the wrong party. I'll go sign up to be a Republican right now, so I can support a party that considers me a second class citizen. :lol :lol :lol

[kwanfanatic2002]

DMB and Kwanluv, my parents are going to Scotland at the end of the summer. I have been trying to get them to let me go with them. I want to go so bad. I also want to see the Swiss Alps. i saw a movie that Kristi McNicol was in (an actres from the 70's and 80's in "Family") that was filmed in Switzerland. It was beautiful.

[kwanluv]

The reporters are making fools of themselves.Actually, I was thinking the same thing of someone else....

KwanFANATIC2002 -
No need to freak out. Besides, it appears that Roberts will most likely get approved by the Senate, so don't worry. And we should all be so lucky to enjoy some time in France or anywhere in Europe, anyhoo...

As a gay man and a "liberal" :eek I can say with 95% certainty that no self respecting gay man would ever wear plaid pants. :lol :lol Am I right manskater? :)

That sort of "fashion" is usually reserved for older wealthy white bread Republican types. :p



And Alexa - Good point. :)

[EigthAv]

Scotland would be cool.You can have France........the snails and the french fries.I'd also love to visit Ukraine,Slovenia and Poland.I'd fit right in there with the native Eastern Euro whitebread and milquetoast.:lol :lol My brother is a genuine Georgia Cracker™.Born in Macon.<!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END--><!--EZCODE BR START--><!--EZCODE BR END-->The demo party assumes that the po folks would rather have checks in the mail and rent discounts in Section 8 properties.Keep the freebies coming and they will always vote for you.Bush is more optimistic.He knows that ownership is a key step towards breaking the bonds of slavery.When you are chin deep in debt and hopelessly dependent upon the dole,don't be surprised if it smells a bit like Uncle Tom's cabin. Slave to the system.Even among the middle class slaving for the system exists.If you don't watch it you can live your entire life and never actually hold the deed to your home or the title to your motor vehicle.You and Circuit City's credit wing own your digital surround sound entertainment products.You and Sears credit wing own your appliances.3 words can set you free.Cash and carry.To any of you teens and very young adults reading my rubbish: The easiest way to stay out of debt is never ever borrow a dime! Start planning now how to beat the system.You may have to induldge in the home mortgage game,but shoot for ownership.If you are earning the interest,dividends and capital gains rather than paying the interest,late fees and other credit trap charges,you can then enjoy living in a capitalist nation.You don't have to be rich to get in on it.When mommie and/or daddy,grandad,whoever,offers to loan you their credit card,politely say,"no thanks".Go for a debit card of your own.Bank the money you save by avoiding the interest payments so you can build for cash purchases.You can buy a well kept older vehicle that will perform just as well and look just as cool as dad's big late model pickup or mom's suv.Save the payments you don't have to make as vehicle repairs funds and towards your next vehicle.Take good care of the vehicle.Be good to it and it will be good to you.On down the road,when your peers are all stuck in the credit games and the stress that goes with that terrotory,you can smile and relish your freedom.It feels good to come in from a hard days work and not have debt related mail all stuffed in your mailbox.It also leaves more room for those autographed piccies from your favourite USFSA skaters.;) And if you ever get annoyed,look at me I'm self employed.I love to work at nothing all day.

[Lanternlight]

And wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who had slaves working for him

Jefferson did indeed have slaves. However, his party at the time was known as the Democratic-Republicans. It has little relation to the party system of this century. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson)

[olympic]

I agree with you on your stay out of Debt approach: I use a CC, but I ALWAYS pay it off at the end of the month. I chuck those wonderful CC offers into the trash.

Though I think your assessment of the Democratic Party is a little too generalized.............

Also, My Grandmother (God rest her soul) was Polish. I wouldn't say it's a Milquetoast (bland) country. Minorities include The Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Germans, etc. They all have a history of no love lost for one another

[attyfan]

To set the record straight, you might look to what people from both parties have said since Lincoln. After all, FDR was begged to intern the Japanese by Republican governor Earl Warren. When Warren visited an internment camp, he realized how wrong he was. When appointed to the US Supreme Court, he was very strong on civil rights -- both for minorities and for criminal defendants. After these rulings, the fact that he was a Republican didn't stop other Republicans from trying to impeach him.

[moxie]

ALso, In the Wa Po section called "Style', reporter Robin Givhan (I'm using that term loosely). said the Roberts family dressed too well. That is so ridiculous.If they hadn't dressed up, the reporters would be writing about how badly they dressed. If he was a liberal, the reporter would be praising the family for their fashion sense and how well they dress. The reporters are making fools of themselves.

KF, did you actually read the entire article or are you just bashing it based on what you heard from someone else about a very short portion of it?

I did read the entire article; here is a synopsis:
The reporter, Givhan, wrote a column in which she discussed recent attire at White House events in terms of how the choice of clothing could be interpreted as far as social message. (It was actually quite interesting.)

One event was when that student group greeted Bush with many young women wearing flip-flops; it was Givhan's opinion that, despite the rise of acceptance for flip-flops in other social settings, a visit to the White House demands more formality. Givhan felt the students who chose flip-flops were not showing proper respect for either Bush or the occasion.

Givhan began her column by analyzing the very formal clothing worn by the Roberts family as a group; even the two young children were in coordinated, very dressy clothes that were straight out of the Easter Parade of the '50s. (She noted that at other recent announcements of high appointments, even very weathy parents have chosen more casual Gap Kids-style clothing for their children; the Roberts kids were overdressed compared with these kids.)

She wasn't bringing this up to criticize the family; her point was that the clothing was a clear message of their intent to evoke the "old-fashioned" Eisenhower/Kennedy days. In fact, she even said the Roberts' young son had a "John-John" look.

It appears that what has happened here is someone just assuming that anything written in the Washington Post would have a motive of bashing Roberts and/or his family ... and then taking a very small part of a story out of context to advance their own very biased agenda.

The only people making fools of themselves ... are those who bash something without actually checking it out fully for themselves.

[kwanfanatic2002]

I am far froma fool Moxie, that article speaks for itself. Those coments were out of line. I do not have a biased agenda. it is none of her business what those beautiful kids were wearing or what other kids wore. her comments were out of line. Yes, i did read the entire article. She was out of line.
I don't need to take anything out of context, the motive was clear, they dont like Roberts because he is Conservative and they are going after his wife and his kids. LEave the kids alone, they are just kids. So what if the parents want to dress the kids in nice clothes, they can afford it.

[moxie]

I do not have a biased agenda. it is none of her business what those beautiful kids were wearing or what other kids wore.

She is a fashion writer whose job it is to comment on what people (including kids, beautiful or otherwise) wear to official public events. Therefore, it is indeed her business.

I, for one, thought she was being mostly complementary about the Roberts family's choice of very put-together outfits.
(She didn't like the pastel colors but did like the idea of dressing up in a more special way than is the norm today.)

Did you at least like the part where the writer criticized the flip-flop-wearing students for not showing enough respect to President Bush?

[MKGrace]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I can say with 95% certainty that no self respecting gay man would ever wear plaid pants.<hr></blockquote> Your 5% instinct is right on. I live close to West Hollywood (LA) and I was at a party recently hosted by a gay man with lots of extremely stylish gay men, one of whom was wearing what I guess to be $300 D&G plaid pants.

[Krista]

Here's an article with a MKM, concerning the supreme court nomination

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...DTCUF1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/07/27/EDGSHDTCUF1.DTL)

:)

[probativev]

I don't need to take anything out of context, the motive was clear, they dont like Roberts because he is Conservative and they are going after his wife and his kids. LEave the kids alone, they are just kids.


Oh brother. Roberts is being nominated by a VERY high profile job. HE trounced out his wife and kids for photo-ops. Naturally, it comes with the territory then that "THEY" will comment on everything including clothing style. Lest you need to be reminded, "THEY" also had a field day with Hillary's hair band, Arkansas hicktown hair style and shredded her to pieces for that. And when she tried to upgrade to have a softer image, "THEY" had a field day reporting her her $250 hair cut (her own $$ not public funds) with Christophe, inplying that she was spending too much (but like you said, why should they care since it's her own money? but you see, with "they", that's not the point). "They", by the way, had lots of fun snarking at Judy Dean's down to earth Vermont style (or non-style, one might say). "They" BTW who had so much fun at the expense of Hillary's hideous fashion images were not conservative Washington Times or Catholic magazines. THEY were the same "liberal" media like the NYT, Washington Post, etc. And "THEY" weren't even writers for the fashion column.

Oh and regarding the kids, Saturday Night Live did skits to rag on 13 year old Chelsea Clinton's looks. As "Saturday Night Live" is part of the "liberal" Hollywood types, what do you have to say about that? Based on your assessment, and the fact of how the media and press treated the Clintons for their fashion styles, the liberal" press and media must hate the Clintons, the Democrats as much as the Bushes and the Republicans. Do you feel better now?

[kwanfanatic2002]

Their is a lot of difference between a 4 and 6 yr old child and a thirteen old kid and her mother. It is wrong on many levels. They should have had a field day w/ Hillary and Chelsea. I'm sorry but they didn't look that great then. Chelsea looks great now. She has turned in a very attractive lady. Someone even offered Bill something like 40 goats and 20 cows(something like that for her). Hillary looks good too, but the way she dresses leaves a lot to be desired. She is just such a phony, it's hard to say anything good about her.

[MKGrace]

Who cares how this guy dresses? If he makes the Bench he'll be wearing a black robe all the time anyway?

Uninformed opinion: I'm a Democrat but I hope this guy or someone who is more conservative gets this spot. I'm tired of the "judicial activism" that goes on wherein the SC inserts its values into everything and practically makes their own legislation. Plus when it comes to criminal cases and the-like I'm on the conservative side. I guess you could say I'm a conservative Democrat, whatever that means.

[kwanfanatic2002]

I could not agree with you more, MKGrace. I'm not a Democrat, but you are so right. great post. !!!:)

[probativev]

They should have had a field day w/ Hillary and Chelsea.

And so you agree "they" are not criticizing fashion sense out of political leaning then? Since you seem to think that the only reason that "they" wrote negatively in your opinion about the Roberts' children's clothing is because "they" hate him, don't you just have to admit that "they" hate the liberal politicians just as much when it comes to fashion?

And I beg to differ that they should have had a field day with Chelsea. You're right that there is a difference between a 4 or 6 y.o. and a 13 y.o. It is a whole lot worse for a 13 y.o. When you are barely out of toddler age, you aren't nearly as sensitive about what you look like or what other people think you look like. You mom picked out your clothes anyway and it's highly unlikely that a 4 or 6 y.o. is reading the Washington Post, or the fashion page of the Washington post for that matter. At 13, it is just way too cruel to be be mocked for your looks on national TV on a show that your peers are mostly likely all watching. The fact that you can't even come out and admit that it was wrong of "they" to pick on 13 y.o. Chelsea just goes to show that you are biased in selectively defending the Roberts' children.

I can care less if they shred Hillary to pieces about what she wears or her hair style. She chooses to be a public figure, then she ought to be woman enough to handle it. My only point is that it's not correct when you automatically assume that any criticism of anyone on the Republican side must be because "they" hate them. "They" are equal opportunity bashers on certain things, and you can at least admit that.

[Lanternlight]

They should have had a field day w/ Hillary and Chelsea. I'm sorry but they didn't look that great then.

Weren't you ever a teenager? It hurts to be made fun of for your looks anytime, especially during the teen years.

I remember when Rush called her the White House dog. :( Chelsea and I are the same age, so I felt bad for her even back then, being a rather awkward teenager myself.

This quote really sums up your whole attitude.

Republicans = Right all the time.

Democrats = Always wrong.

[Krista]

I'm not a Democrat

:lol Im sorry I had to chuckle at that. I think most people have figured that out hehe ;)

[MKGrace]

Thanks kwanfanatic2002. <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif" />

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I remember when Rush called [Chelsea] the White House dog.<hr></blockquote> How cruel! <img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/frown.gif" /> I wonder if Rush made that comment when he was strung out on Oxycontin.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Good grief, i am not defending anyone the Roberts kids. Good Grief, it is not right to pick on kids, I just think it's cruel to pick on a kids. period. They cannot help what they have on, just like Chelsea. I could not care less about the Clintons. i think they (Bill and Hillary) are both liars and phonies. Espically Hillary now, since she thinks she is fooling people trying to be more of a moderate than a far left liberal. SHe is full ofit. She is a liar, a phony and an idiot if she thinks people are falling for her rheotoric.

Rush's comemnt about Chelsea and the WH dog was cruel and uncalled for.

[moxie]

Actually, Hillary started out as a Young Republican who worked on the Nixon campaign, and a number of her Senate votes (especially the bankruptcy bill) have been on the conservative and/or Republican side. Yes, she also has voted with the more liberal Senators, but does have many critics who feel she is "not liberal" enough. (The only people who wish to portray her as far-left are people who want to make her seem unappealing to moderate voters who might consider voting for her.) So, if those on both the far-right and far-left aren't happy with her, that must make her ... a moderate.

Good Grief, it is not right to pick on kids, I just think it's cruel to pick on a kids. period.

No one was picking on the kids. IIRC, the writer even described them as "adorable" or something to that effect. (I'll look it up again and post it.) The writer simply stated that the family's attire, as a group, conveyed a conservative, Old Money look that is quite unusual in Washington, D.C., today. (I'm actually a bit surprised that the writer didn't ding Mrs. Roberts for NOT completing her Social Register ensemble with a proper, Jackie-style hat and gloves ...) It was the writer's opinion that this look was not accidental, and did indeed project a message about the family's support of the values and mores of several decades ago.

This is what was important about that story. And it is getting lost with misplaced and ridiculous outrage over kids getting "picked on."

Heck, the kids are too young to buy and/or pick out their clothes. Why would anyone blame them for anything anyway?

OK, now editing to add these exerpts from the original story in the Washington Post; note that the writer takes special care NOT to pick on and/or blame the children:

The wife wore a strawberry-pink tweed suit with taupe pumps and pearls, which alone would not have been particularly remarkable, but alongside the nostalgic costuming of the children, the overall effect was of self-consciously crafted perfection. The children, of course, are innocents. They are dressed by their parents. And through their clothes choices, the parents have created the kind of honeyed faultlessness that jams mailboxes every December when personalized Christmas cards arrive bringing greetings "to you and yours" from the Blake family or the Joneses. Everyone looks freshly scrubbed and adorable, just like they have stepped from a Currier & Ives landscape.

In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. "John-John" Kennedy Jr.

snip; section here criticized the flip-flop students as being disrespectful of Bush & then went back to the Roberts family to sum up:

Dressing appropriately is a somewhat selfless act. It's not about catering to personal comfort. One can't give in fully to private aesthetic preferences. Instead, one asks what would make other people feel respected? What would mark the occasion as noteworthy? What signifies that the moment is bigger than the individual?

But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual -- and his family -- to the sweep of tradition. In their attire, there was nothing too informal; there was nothing immodest. There was only the feeling that, in the desire to be appropriate and respectful of history, the children had been costumed in it.

I can see no evidence of the writer picking on the children.
If anything, she is picking on their parents for using them as perfect little props in a perfect little photo-op.

I, for one, wish parents would just keep their kids out of official occasions like this. Even though I like John Edwards, I was appalled at the way his two young children were dragged up on stage at such a late hour during the Democratic National Convention. (His son seemed OK with it, but his daughter seemed positively traumatized.)

[olympic]

Hillary was also a "Goldwater Girl" in 1964, campaigning for the Republican Candidate for President, Barry Goldwater. He was known as the Grandfather of the Modern Conservative movement (precursor to Reagan et al). Her father was a diehard Republican, who at first resented her Fiance for being a Southern Baptist and a Democrat!

She's talked about how her party affiliation changed in the later 60s, after going to College.

[moxie]

actually, i might have been confusing her Goldwater ties with Nixon, lol. I do know she grew up in a very Republican area of Illinois.

[probativev]

Well in a way Kwanfanatic is right. Hillary is deceptive even if she is not an outright liar. She has never ever been liberal enough. She allowed the publicity spins from both parties to portray her that way when Bill was running for Prez. From everything that she's done since even her pre-first lady days, I always thought she was a closet moderate. She only pulled back her liberal image when it became damaging after the baking cookies and standing by your man fiasco and things got out of hands. She's been IMO a total disappointment as a senator. She can take a stand and be a voice for people on the left but she doesn't. Instead she gets behind one conservative agenda after another. First it was her being all the way behind the Iraq war. Then the "abortion is a tragic thing" bullcrap. And now her lashes out against violence and porn in video games. What had she been doing? Hanging out with Bill Frist too much?

The only thing she's good for the Dems is that she's a huge draw as a fundraiser. Other than that, I don't really want her with national power. She's doesn't do anything for the people she purports to represent and she's not worth the support they give her.

Funny thing is that the conservatives think SHE is their real enemy, with her oh so moderate credentials and record and all. She's about as harmful to their interests as Judge Roberts. Even Sandra O'Connor does more for liberals. Heck, even William Rhenquists does more for liberals.

[EigthAv]

Hillary and Bill are where Lurleen & George wanted to go when they were up and on the move in the 1960s.All the way up to the top floor.

[moxie]

The only thing she's good for the Dems is that she's a huge draw as a fundraiser. Other than that, I don't really want her with national power. She's doesn't do anything for the people she purports to represent and she's not worth the support they give her.

I tend to agree with you on this & am hoping someone else emerges to run in 2008. I am thinking that she will draw all the "heat," while someone else more quietly builds the base & platform that can help this country overcome the disaster that is the current administration.

[manskater]

If Hilary is guilty of changing positions and being of accused of being a "liar" she and others have probably learned that tactic from the biggest "liar" out there, that being our great Commander-in chief. "Compassionate Conservatism" and "uniter not divider" are just two of the lies this administration has spouted to the masses.

[moxie]

Yes, and we can also add Frist to the list of notable Republican flip-floppers ... though I am glad did did see the light and alter his position on stem-cell research.

[Emerald2000]

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the last time I checked it was our Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who, if my memory serves me right, was the one who freed the slaves."

You can't compare the Republican Party now to the Republican Party in 1863. It's changed. Although the Republican Party was the party of big business and laissez-faire economics (possibly the only similarity between the party then and now), they weren't the evangelical, family-values party that they are today. The Democrats were split in the mid 1800's as well--Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. As far as the issue of slavery went, it was less of a Democrat/Republican thing and more of a Northern/Southern thing. The Democratic Party's stronghold used to be in the South, and as we can pretty much all testify, it's not that way anymore. (Kudos to whoever brought up Strom Thurmond.)

Re: Judge Roberts--he could be worse. I'm certainly not a fan, but I can't say I was expecting a woman or a minority. We'll have to wait and see what he does if he's appointed to the SC. In other words, time will tell.

[attyfan]

Everybody hates him. Take your pick:

Conservative group opposing him becaue he worked on gay rights case:

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/sto...TE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROBERTS?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Liberal group opposing him because he worked on anti-abortion rights case:

www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?...n=newsroom (http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=2355&section=newsroom)

[moxie]

In both those cases, he was hired to fight those battles. Don't know if either one really shows how he'd actually rule as a judge.

[EigthAv]

Lawyers routinely defend criminals. We,as American citizens have a right to a fair trial even when we hack up our mums and/or rob Fort Knox. It doesn't make the lawyers criminals. I can't believe I'm defending lawyers.:eek Put any of us in the 50 and over bracket under a microscope and you'll find none of us are perfect.