Unable to find any valid reasons for preventing the confirmation of John Roberts as a Supreme Court Justice, the liberal smear machine is on a PR campaign to drag his wife's views on abortion into the national debate. The quite obvious agenda is to scare people into thinking that he will personally reverse RvW.

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.

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."

Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."

Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were reacting strongly Wednesday to President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination.

The president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, said: "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wife21jul21,0,4513105.story?coll=la-home-headlines

How is this different than you judging Clinton by Hillary's actions? Or the vice versa, for that matter.

And by "you" I mean the conservatives. Considered as a group, that's a more than accurate statement, individualities aside.

I haven't seen Roberts' wife claim that the country would be getting a twofer if he is confirmed - nobody is calling her the Co-Judge. I also doubt she will be clerking at the court - the equivalent of Hillary running the secretive National Healthcare proposal project.

I saw a news piece earlier that sunk as low as to make fun of how his children were dressed. Heh. Desperate measures, indeed.

I haven't seen Roberts' wife claim that the country would be getting a twofer if he is confirmed - nobody is calling her the Co-Judge. I also doubt she will be clerking at the court - the equivalent of Hillary running the secretive National Healthcare proposal project.


Precisely. It's astounding that you even have to point it out.


I saw a news piece earlier that sunk as low as to make fun of how his children were dressed. Heh. Desperate measures, indeed.

I even read some comments from a lefty blog, Kos, where the lefties were gay baiting Robert's son. http://dailykos.com/comments/2005/7/19/21825/1962/97#97

There is no level which is too low for the left. They keep re-defining sleaze and setting new lows.

Precisely. It's astounding that you even have to point it out.




I even read some comments from a lefty blog, Kos, where the lefties were gay baiting Robert's son. http://dailykos.com/comments/2005/7/19/21825/1962/97#97

There is no level which is too low for the left. They keep re-defining sleaze and setting new lows.


ROFL, where do these people come from?

Unable to find any valid reasons for preventing the confirmation of John Roberts as a Supreme Court Justice, the liberal smear machine is on a PR campaign to drag his wife's views on abortion into the national debate. The quite obvious agenda is to scare people into thinking that he will personally reverse RvW.

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.

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."

Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."

Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were reacting strongly Wednesday to President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination.

The president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, said: "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wife21jul21,0,4513105.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Is this like the most ironic post of all time? Considering your complete approval of what the neo-cons have done to Joe Wilsons wife? You are speaking out of two sides of your mouth..

Is this like the most ironic post of all time? Considering your complete approval of what the neo-cons have done to Joe Wilsons wife? You are speaking out of two sides of your mouth..

Was thinking the same thing... :nice:

I haven't seen Roberts' wife claim that the country would be getting a twofer if he is confirmed - nobody is calling her the Co-Judge. I also doubt she will be clerking at the court - the equivalent of Hillary running the secretive National Healthcare proposal project.
Where did the phrase Co-Judge come from? Conservatives. AFAIK, neither Bill nor Hilary ever said anything about getting a twofer. And what was secretive about the National Healthcare project? We heard about it here in NZ, after all!

Is this like the most ironic post of all time? Considering your complete approval of what the neo-cons have done to Joe Wilsons wife? You are speaking out of two sides of your mouth..

Joe Wilson did it to his wife - not the NeoCons.

Where did the phrase Co-Judge come from? Conservatives. AFAIK, neither Bill nor Hilary ever said anything about getting a twofer. And what was secretive about the National Healthcare project? We heard about it here in NZ, after all!

The 1992 Clinton campaign included a subtext that the nation would be getting two presidents for the price of one. During Clinton's first term, Hillary went way beyond the traditional role of the First Lady by getting heavily involved in policy.

The Health Care project was secretive and violated federal sunshine laws. The end result may have been publicized - but the process which created the recommendations was cloaked. The public backlash resulted in Hillary taking a less active role in the West Wing - thankfully sparing the nation more Socialist inanity.

ROFL, where do these people come from?

Thats a good question. It seems that the nuts have taken over the Democrat party. Whether it's Dean, Durbin, or just some guy blogging, it seems they're almost all crazy. What happened to them?

Thats a good question. It seems that the nuts have taken over the Democrat party. Whether it's Dean, Durbin, or just some guy blogging, it seems they're almost all crazy. What happened to them?

The coming of age in the 60s entitlement-oriented Baby Boomers took over the party. Do whatever feels good and reject responsibility for the consequences. It might be fun when one is in college - but it's a lousy platform for a political party.

Bo, their bloodlust for infanticide is unquenchable. It's pathetic.

Nice to know Judge Roberts' wife is a woman of intelligence and integrity. She should be in line to be nominated for a Supreme Court position. Giver her Ruth Bader Ginsburg's slot. :nice:

I just love the attempt to equate Robert's wife with Wilson's. I don't believe Mrs. Roberts nominated Mr. Roberts for the SC the way Plame recommended Wilson for his assignment.

Joe Wilson did it to his wife - not the NeoCons.


Your nose is growing..

Thats a good question. It seems that the nuts have taken over the Democrat party. Whether it's Dean, Durbin, or just some guy blogging, it seems they're almost all crazy. What happened to them?

Corporatists have taken over the Democratic party, just as they have the Republicans.

Your nose is growing..

^ Personal Attack.

The coming of age in the 60s entitlement-oriented Baby Boomers took over the party. Do whatever feels good and reject responsibility for the consequences. It might be fun when one is in college - but it's a lousy platform for a political party.

What do YOU know about responsibility? You and your entire Republican party passes the buck on everything they do, now the smear doctors are trying to blame Jow Wilson for the outing of his wife done bythe Bush administration.

You guys accept responsibility for NOTHING. You blame everything on the Democrats or on Bill Clinton.

This is why this country is so screwed, it's people are lost in space...

I'm a registered Democrat - but thanks for sharing.

^ Personal Attack.


So is just about everyone of your posts Ms. Moonbat. :rolleyes:

It's the truth anyways, it's tiring seing these lies being spread on a daily basis about important issues..

I'm a registered Democrat - but thanks for sharing.


So? I'm registered under some far right wing party..

If you have a point, I am all atwitter with anticipation to read it.

So is just about everyone of your posts Ms. Moonbat. :rolleyes:

It's the truth anyways, it's tiring seing these lies being spread on a daily basis about important issues..

^ Another Personal Attack

YOU'RE ALL (READ: MOSTLY) SMART PEOPLE. WHY THE FLYING F*** DO SO MANY OF YOU FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO GET OVER STUPID LEFT/RIGHT GENERALIZATION BULLSH*T?

I'm a "lefty." I am not surprised by Bush's pick, nor do I expect him to pick anyone other than exactly who he wants. Some individuals act like idiots expecting him to appoint Ted Kennedy. If Kerry were in office, some individuals would expect him to appoint Antonin Scalia Jr. This does not make "the left" or "the right" despicable, unworthy of respect, or without redeeming qualities. Arguing your point with generalizations about how "the left" or "the right" is like this or like that, though, is unworthy of respect, unproductive, and suggestive of an inability to discuss substantive issues in a mature manner.

SHUT THE F*CK UP ABOUT "LEFT" AND "RIGHT" AND TALK ABOUT THE PROPRIETY OF YOUR ACTUAL IDEAS! ****!*

*I'm sorta new here. I dunno if cursing and all will get me banned or what, but if it does, honestly, having to wade through dozens of mindless tirades to come across the occasional golden nugget of intelligent discussion makes it frustrating enough that I won't cry a river. I just had to get that off my chest.

Corporatists have taken over the Democratic party, just as they have the Republicans.

Corporatists, Elitists, or both?

George Soros, Progressive Insurance honcho Peter Lewis, Hollywood mogul Stephen Bing, and the couple who started moveon.org Herbert and Marion Sandler all together spent about $78 million in the last election.

5 people spent more than the $75 million in federal funds that each presidential candidate received to conduct his entire general election campaign. 5 people!!! If that doesn't blow anyone away I don't know what does.

I should note that it was also more than twice what the top five Republican 527 donors spent.

I should note that it was also more than twice what the top five Republican 527 donors spent.

Why spend money when you know people hate the idea of gays gettin' it on enough to not care about how you perform on any other issue under the sun? ;)

The 1992 Clinton campaign included a subtext that the nation would be getting two presidents for the price of one. During Clinton's first term, Hillary went way beyond the traditional role of the First Lady by getting heavily involved in policy.

The Health Care project was secretive and violated federal sunshine laws. The end result may have been publicized - but the process which created the recommendations was cloaked. The public backlash resulted in Hillary taking a less active role in the West Wing - thankfully sparing the nation more Socialist inanity.
Ah, I see - "sub-text" - in other words, all in your imagination! LOL!!!!

As for Hilary going beyond the traditional role of a President's wife - what about Laura? Isn't she the first wife to address Congress? But I suppose that's all right, because she just says what Karl Rove and Dick Zanye tell her to say... :eek3:

Ah, I see - "sub-text" - in other words, all in your imagination! LOL!!!!

As for Hilary going beyond the traditional role of a President's wife - what about Laura? Isn't she the first wife to address Congress? But I suppose that's all right, because she just says what Karl Rove and Dick Zanye tell her to say... :eek3:


Crock of inanity.

Please provide evidence that Roberts' wife recommended him for the SC position or that she is active as an assistant within his current court.

There is nothing wrong with a First Lady having a public role - nor is it improper to critique the activities and opinions of the wives of public figures AS INDIVIDUALS. To assume that Jane Roberts views on abortion will somehow affect her husband's rulings is unjust. The liberal media's pathetic attempt to derail her husband's nomination because she is a devout Catholic is just that - pathetic.

Crock of inanity.

Please provide evidence that Roberts' wife recommended him for the SC position or that she is active as an assistant within his current court.

There is nothing wrong with a First Lady having a public role - nor is it improper to critique the activities and opinions of the wives of public figures AS INDIVIDUALS. To assume that Jane Roberts views on abortion will somehow affect her husband's rulings is unjust. The liberal media's pathetic attempt to derail her husband's nomination because she is a devout Catholic is just that - pathetic.
Boedica, I have nothing to say about Jane Roberts, and for to insist that I do is a "red herring". My comments were only about Hilary Clinton vs Laura Bush, and I not you have nothing to say about them.

There is no comparison when comparing the roles of Hillary and Laura Bush.
Hillary was an active policy maker in the the Clinton White House. Laura does not crave or desire such power.

Oh, and Laura was the 4th first lady to address Congress. :nice:

Boedica, I have nothing to say about Jane Roberts, and for to insist that I do is a "red herring". My comments were only about Hilary Clinton vs Laura Bush, and I not you have nothing to say about them.

Hillary crossed the line of an appropriate role for a First Lady when she ran the HillaryCare program. First Ladies speaking out on public policy issues is a long accepted part of the role - running secretive programs to nationalize 1/7 of our economy without complying with federal disclosure laws is quite another.

There is no comparison when comparing the roles of Hillary and Laura Bush.
Hillary was an active policy maker in the the Clinton White House. Laura does not crave or desire such power.

Oh, and Laura was the 4th first lady to address Congress. :nice:
Really? I didn't know that. A hagiographical news item about her addressing congress said she was the first...

Hillary crossed the line of an appropriate role for a First Lady when she ran the HillaryCare program. First Ladies speaking out on public policy issues is a long accepted part of the role - running secretive programs to nationalize 1/7 of our economy without complying with federal disclosure laws is quite another.
Nationalise 1/7 of your economy? Are you sure about that? :D