SCOTUS IONUS ROBERTUS
Jul. 19th, 2005 06:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
If you wanted to take the heat off of Rove long enough for people to forget that you said that anyone involved in leaking the name of a CIA operative to the press would be fired, surely you could not have chosen a more controversial method than to nominate to the Supreme Court a practicing Catholic and arch-conservative with outspoken views against the right to abortion and the rights of private citizens to sue the government to prevent the wholesale destruction of mountain-tops in the pursuit of coal.
Short of nuking Iran, of course.
Short of nuking Iran, of course.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 02:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 02:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 05:23 am (UTC)And I sure hope that my multi-clause sentences on LJ are never held up as representative of my tech writing. ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 05:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 05:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 04:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 05:31 am (UTC)Very rarely, though. A law clerk for Rehnquist; a Reagan appointee; a political insider who know how to act to win support for his boss; this man does not inspire in me great confidence that he will shine with wisdom and fairness if appointed. This man makes me doubt. This man makes me believe that he has been selected to draw attention away from the Administration's current embarassment, Karl Rove.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 05:44 pm (UTC)This man makes me believe that he has been selected to draw attention away from the Administration's current embarassment, Karl Rove.
I have a very hard time with this assertion because I don't think it makes sense. Really, what is the name of the person Drinky McDumbass could submit and not be accused of attempting to divert attention? Supreme Court nominations are always a huge deal -- one out of five gets rejected and even Washington experienced the humiliation of defeat on this front. There is no person, rightie or leftie or in-betweenie-weenie, that he could nominate that would not cause headlines to talk about the nominee and the nomination process. Nor could he wait to put forward the nomination for the purposes of letting politics and the media finish playing with Rove -- that is an irresponsible reason.
I don't this assertion working because there is no way for the nomination process to be uncontroversial and to wait for a quiet newsday only for the purpose of a quiet newsday is to pay too much attention to public relations.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 08:01 pm (UTC)And that's O'Doul'sie McDumbass to you.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 05:25 am (UTC)I thought we put the days of automatically disqualifying Catholics behind us when JFK was elected. Its not like we're talking a guy who's an active member of Opus Dei - at least, I don't think he is.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 05:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-20 06:10 pm (UTC)If you were just copying and pasting from the Wikipedia entry on the "practicing Catholic" part, then my bad. My problem is more with the Wiki entry re: relevance of Catholicism in that case. By the time the hearings are done, he'll likely have had his views dissected up the wazoo enough so that there'll be little need to use his religion to guess at where he stands on abortion for folks for whom abortion is a make-or-break issue.