So who picks who asks questions? I mean, having to see that bloated toad Teddy Kennedy sit and attempt to act like a human is too much for me, along with that joke Biden, oh, dude, I just get so damned mad!
The whole lot of them are just filth. Why do I have to pay to have them sit in front of a camera just ripping on this guy when they've already said he will get passed anyway? What's the damned point?
The point is to get to watch an actual intellect expose these fools for the morons that they are.
To know that they have research teams... highly paid hired guns... all working together to try to trump this one man.. and this one man... alone... is simply making fools of them all...
Its amusing to me.
I agree Nate he dstoyed them. I found it amusing myself. I am listening again today because it is more interesting than most things around and it is resfresing to hear a man with great intellect speak.
Nice sum up Nate.
Even funnier, from Drudge:
" Day 2 of the hearings for Judge John Roberts' nomination to become Chief Justice opened with no Democrat Senators present. "
...Chief Justice opened with no Democrat Senators present.
Then why didn't they vote and get it over with?
The legacy media is also not good with listening skills.
I heard Roberts say: Legal precedents are important and should not be overturned lightly.
Washingtom post headline: Roberts supports Roe.
I watched it too and decided I like Roberts. I may even love him. He does have some pretty eyes. 
I thought he totally squashed the Senators. It was vastly amusing.
Dude - speaking of bad jokes, Dimocrats and Repubicrats, it's Wednesday. Ring any other bells??
This guy is a Bush appointee all the way. He does not want to change the world, he just wants to fix it... Watch out!
I'm somewhat suspicious that the Dims are so cooperative on this nomination. SCOTUS really has been the root of their power all these years. They'll be on the ropes if Roberts and whoever Bush chooses to replace Sandy turn out to be actual conservatives.
Well how about a little good news...
It seems government is operating with more efficiency than it ever has... Tom Delay said so,
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/n...20153-
3878r.htm
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
...despite running record deficits...
...despite blowing the response to Katrina, as the President has acknowledged culpability for...
...despite porous borders...
...despite failing to progress against most every War on [something]...
...yes, they are definitely efficient. They run the most efficient political campaigns, I imagine.
Nate, you're right that these senators are idiots, & that Roberts has acquited himself well. But I don't think the guy's a conservative, at all. Just my opinion.
Wes.... Please read carefully. I did not say Roberts was a conservative. I said the opposite.
Nate, I did not get to watch the hearings, thatnks for your summary. What I did hear on the radio makes me believe that Roberts is a G.W.Bush clone. He says all the things necessary to make the "conservative" Republicans fall at his feet, saying "All Hail Caesar"
They have tried to convince themselves that because he uses all the right words, he must be one of us. All the while ignoring the fact that his actions are the opposite of what he says.
Nate: I realize that. I didn't mean to imply that you were labelling him a conservative.
I suppose I should've been a little more clear.
I agree with your last sentence. But you say that like it's bad. It's not.
SCOTUS is 9 refs. They're supposed to enforce the rule of law, not find new justifications as to why a touchdown should mean 20 points today but 5 tomorrow.
If Roe v. Wade is struck down, I'd be glad.
But the 9th and 10th amendments give the states the room they need to legalize abortion constitutionally.
Applying the 14th (?, can't recall, tired) at the same time as the 9th and 10th is problematic, but that's going to take lawyers to sort out.
Bottom line: Get rid of Roe v. Wade and let the states ban or permit abortion all you want. Then work it out according to the Constitution and state laws. That's how our system should work.
A federal ban on abortion would be just as bad legally as Roe v. Wade from a Constitutional POV. Someone tell me why I'm wrong and I'll listen. But most likely you're arguing morality, not the law.
You're wrong because of basic property rights.
The baby's right to live, based on the fact that it owns itself, trumps the woman's privacy right.
Once you've established that the baby is a human being, then its rights cannot be denied based merely on physical location or age.
Point to any article in the Constitution that gives the federal government any say whatsoever in the abortion debate.
Commenting by HaloScan
