T1B

...that's interesting, because Leahy has previously said:

Those papers that we have received paint a picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party then, and now. In influential White House and Department of Justice positions, John Roberts expressed views that were among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, privacy, and access to justice.

So, Leahy is going to support a nominee who he thinks is going to reverse decades of progress on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy, and access to justice??

These Democrats will say anything won't they?

Christ, you even bitch when someone supports you. You ever satisfied?

mvscal wrote:Why does Patrick Leahy hate black people and want to shoot them?

He's from Vermont. They shootblacks for sport up there.

BSmack wrote:Christ, you even bitch when someone supports you. You ever satisfied?

Well, Senator Leahy's comments were quite strong, B. And Leahy hasn't indicated that his earlier concerns were addressed.

Hence, my point that Leahy was simply lying earlier using heavy political rhetoric to mischaracterize Roberts as anti-everything.

Leahy simply kow-towed to the lefty groups to smear Roberts only to end up voting for him in the end.

Rather pathetic if you ask me.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Why does Patrick Leahy hate black people and want to shoot them?

He's from Vermont. They shootblacks for sport up there.

And he and Howard Dean are you party's leaders...props, I guess.

DrDetroit wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:Why does Patrick Leahy hate black people and want to shoot them?

He's from Vermont. They shootblacks for sport up there.

And he and Howard Dean are you party's leaders...props, I guess.

Yep, we've got you all fooled. Come the revolution we'll throw off the rainbow wigs and throw on the sheets. Won't you all be fooled!

Looks like Ralph Neas is also trashing Leahy for his inexplicable change.

I can only wonder...why would Leahy assert that Roberts was such a threat and then end up supporting him?

Maybe because Leahy, like most Democrats, simply chose to smear Roberts rather than objectively determine whether Roberts was qualified?

DrDetroit wrote:Looks like Ralph Neas is also trashing Leahy for his inexplicable change.

Who cares?

I can only wonder...why would Leahy assert that Roberts was such a threat and then end up supporting him?

The change happened when Roberts was tapped to fill Rhenquist's spot and not O'Connor's spot. Now moderate and conservative dems are feeling pressure to support Roberts on the premise that Roberts will be no worse than Rhenquist already was and they can keep their powder dry for a fight over O'Connor's replacement.

Who cares about Neas? Uh, the Democratic National Committee, dolt. That's who. Remember last month when the WaPo and NYT both had front page articles explaining that Roberts' confirmation was a foregone conclusion as Democrats commented that he was likely to be confirmed? Well, the very next day, the headlines were about groups like Neas' hammering Democrats like Leahy, Schumer, etc., to get aggressive. It was immediately after that sure enough we saw the AP hit piece suggesting that Roberts was racist and Democrats predictably were concerned about this "serious development."

Don't tell me he doesn't matter. Neas matters a whole lot more to the Democrats than Robertson does to the Republicans.

The change happened when Roberts was tapped to fill Rhenquist's spot and not O'Connor's spot. Now moderate and conservative dems are feeling pressure to support Roberts on the premise that Roberts will be no worse than Rhenquist already was and they can keep their powder dry for a fight over O'Connor's replacement.

How does that address my point, B? How can Leahy go from condemning Roberts as a thread to progress made re: civil rights, women's rights, privacy, etc., to supporting his nomination to Chief Justice?

He did and it demonstrates that his earlier condemnation was disgusting political smear motivated by pressure from groups like Neas' PFAW. Period.

This is the gift that keeps on giving, B. You guys have just demonstrated that you're unprincipled lying scoundrels who will smear a nominee without knowing anything about him...