John Roberts Supreme Court (Partial) Roundup and Thoughts Friday

Patterico and Pejmanesque double team the LA Times for thinking Roberts agreed with the law in the Hedgepeth case, which I referred to in this article. I approve of judges who refuse to do the job of elected officials, and I say so again.



SCT Nomination Blog has stuff on Robert's Concurring and Dissenting opinions as well as a Thursday Round Up. I may have missed something, but the more I read the more I like.



Vodkapundit points us to a New York Times editorial from a New Republic writer who doesn't think Roberts is bad. (Registration required: here's Bug Me Not to log in with)



Wizbang discusses the echo chamber the left evidently wants As he notes, the redefinition of cloture fight is coming, but it likely won't be during Robert's confirmation.



Looks like the folks at DU have quite a "honey do" list against Roberts, working on distorting the political process. Of course, the Supreme Court is important to them, because they haven't got a prayer of actually electing anybody that passes all of thier tests. Of course, you do have to elect candidates to be able to choose somebody for the Supreme Court, and electing enough candidates means you're going to have to accept compromises... (This whole list of "honey dos" does appear to be a short term attempt to distort the political process, making them appear more numerous than they are. Of course, when they can't elect anyone, it falls apart).



I went to their sites to check them out (use the links off DU). Alliance for Justice says they had "laid out standards" but those standards are not to be found on their website. I suspect their request for a "thorough examination" translates to "let's bring back the Inquisitision, just for him." AAUW actually says the cases they are trying to protect on their website, if not on the petition. Democracy for America offers no specifics except to "join Senator Leahy" on the petition, but elsewhere on their site they do own up to their agenda. Move On owns up to their agenda, however much out of context they choose to take situations. NARAL takes one quote out of context and bases its opposition on that. Save the Court doesn't want a "rush to judgement" (i.e. the Inquisition again), but they do go into their agenda elsewhere on the site. Planned Parenthood Action wants him examined on "women's health, safety, and privacy" as if he wants to remove breast cancer treatment from HMOs, force women to cross the road blindfolded, and publish their sexual history publicly on the net. What do you mean it's all about abortion? True Majority is actually hilarious, in a pitiful oversimplify amd don't mention dozens of critically important facts kind of way. They all do their best to make themselves appear rational so somebody raised isolated in the wilderness might agree, but for somebody who realizes context, it's a much tougher sell.



(Sorry, out of time!)

John Roberts Supreme Court