furt:
What’s up with jute?
And once again elucidator gets off scot-free.
jayjay
July 25, 2005, 2:04pm
203
Only if one doesn’t wish to nit-pict…
jayjay
July 25, 2005, 2:12pm
205
EddyTeddyFreddy:
:: Wales at pun ::
Okay, the humor in this thread is starting to get really cornish…
This is quite beneath me, and I will not Dane to respond.
You guys are just having a Gael time.
There’s Norway I can put up with this.
With all these puns I worry that the mods will Finnish this thread.
jayjay
July 25, 2005, 5:30pm
212
Don’t worry. They’re Lapping it up…
Frank
July 25, 2005, 5:47pm
213
Certainly, they’re not Russian to close it.
If they were merciful, they would have Celt it by now…
Back on post #49 , ArchiveGuy , quoted Jeffrey Rosen as saying that Roberts was “against broad protections of personal property rights”. This is a much bigger red flag for me than anything he may have to say about abortion.
Merciful? Who needs Merseyful in the Pit? Just suck it up, you Eirehead. Are you a Manx or a Meuse?
Back on post #49 , ArchiveGuy , quoted Jeffrey Rosen as saying that Roberts was “against broad protections of personal property rights”. This is a much bigger red flag for me than anything he may have to say about abortion.
Indeed, I’d like to know more about the context of that observation, in what fields of law precisely Roberts believes that, or is it a broad principle?
Of course, it’s not the sort of thing that makes for good soundbites.
However, this does make for good soundbites:
But the Los Angeles Times is telling us something about Roberts we might not have expected: As a private lawyer, Roberts “worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.”
Roberts didn’t write the briefs or appear at oral arguments in Romer v. Evans, the 1996 case in which a divided Supreme Court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that effectively prohibited the state or its political subdivisions from passing laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination. But according to several lawyers who were involved in the case, Roberts was instrumental in reviewing filings and helping other lawyers prepare for oral arguments, the Times says.
Roberts didn’t mention the gay rights case in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he completed earlier this week, and the Times doesn’t say how it first learned of his work for the cause. Over at the Washington Monthly, Kevin Drum wonders how the story came to be. Did a supporter plant the story in order to placate liberals who fear that Roberts is another Scalia? Or did an opponent drop the dime to strike fear in Christianists who fear Roberts is another David Souter?
This should be interesting…
Interesting indeed! Still more reason why the Democrats should think long and hard before deciding to oppose this nomination.
Cripes, maybe they’re afraid of the Republicans!