Already it seems democrats have dug in their heels and started-in against Bush's new nominee, appellate court Judge John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Democrats want a litmus test for any conservative judge, but feel it isn't necessary for a liberal judge to be questioned at all. The hypocrisy stinks so bad, city sewers smell sweet.

In a well thought out decision for Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement, president Bush has nominated appeals court Judge John Roberts to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy. The only question remaining for his approval is, "How low are the democrats willing to go in trying to smear Mr. Roberts to make their liberal base of baby killers happy?"

What they should be asking themselves after the nation got a chance to see and hear him is, "How many voters are they willing to risk losing if they do?"

Mr. Roberts is already being attacked for co-writing a Supreme Court brief for the first Bush administration arguing the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that overturned state laws banning abortion, was wrongly decided. But that was for a client while working as a lawyer, not making a decision working as a judge.

We don't know too much about Mr. Roberts, but what we do know is that he is a fine man by all accounts, even democrats give him that. And since his approval to the appellate court, dems will have a hard time in stopping his ascension.

Democrat attack machine

The attacks by democrats are up and running. NewsMax.com reports that the Bean town rag Boston Globe has just come out with a hit piece on Robert's wife, claming she is a pro-life woman. OUCH! She wants to save babies lives? OH, NOOOOOO, say the baby killing liberals.

In fact, the pro-choice liberals at "Planned Parenthood" (the ultimate oxymoron) said they are studying a new strategy that will drop the word "choice" in order to divide people by confusing what the choice is, thereby mixing up what abortion actually means. According to sources, in one forthcoming brief obtained by Newsweek, Third Way (a democrat think tank) divides voters into abortion "polars." But in reality, this is simply another evil tactic used against woman for murdering the life within them.

Democrats want to "reframe the abortion issue." As if killing innocent babies is some kind of game to be played like chess.

"We've gotten a little far away from talking with people very much from the heart," admits Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood.

The Roberts hearings could test the new "strategy," reports Newsweek Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Debra Rosenberg in the Aug. 8 issue (on newsstands Monday, Aug. 1).

What kind of heart do those who desire the murders of innocent babies have? These are the types of women who put their sexual pleasures above the lives of all others. If they can willingly kill their own baby, they are at least as heart-less at their core as any other murderer on death row or serving a life sentence for their crime.

The abortion pushers at Planned Parenthood should be tried for abusing women and fostering the genocide of over 45 million innocent lives since Roe vs. Wade. They cannot hide the evil they've done and are continuing. Their arguments are wrong on all counts and they must pay the price for their deceptions which will no longer be tolerated by a civil society.


For her part, Mrs. Roberts served as an executive vp for "Feminists for Life" whos mission statement according to Carl Limbacher says, "Feminists for Life recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic woman-centered solutions.

"Women deserve better than abortion," the mission statement continues.

"Feminists for Life continues the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, who opposed abortion."

So liberals now have a target, only she wasn't nominated by the president.


Having already cleared 5 FBI background checks, democrats will have a hard time finding anything of substance to smear him with. All Judge Roberts has to do is answer questions in the simplest of terms because the democrat senators are not nearly as smart as he is. The issues that Ultra-liberal senator Teddy Kennedy said were important on Wednesday's Today Show was a dodge from the real issue of abortion that he can't wait to attack with.

"what these hearings are about are really the question and the challenge to make sure that we’re going have someone who stands on the side of working families, the middle class, of ordinary people, when you get right down to it.

The American people during this process want to know is he [Roberts] going to be on the side of the major corporate interests or is he going to be on the (side of the) consumers’ interest? Will he be on the side of the polluters or will he be on the side of those that believe that the Congress had the right to pass important legislation on the environment? And will he be on the side of workers, or is he going to be on the side of the bosses? Those are the issues..."


Senator Chuckles Schumer of New York said that Roberts has refused to answer "important questions." Gee Chuck, like what? How about asking this question: "What is your position on driving a pair of pliers into an innocent babies head and pulling out it's brains just as the living baby is being born in order to murder it as requested by the mother in a partial birth abortion procedure?" Schumer is as evil as one gets and looks to be Kennedy's liberal successor to continue the role of making a mockery of America.

You know Teddy, you're really getting up there in age and your time is getting very close now. Will you be making your final mistake, or will you try to repent of your past evils? And don't forget about Mary Jo, who you left to die in your car on a bridge after you crashed in a drunken stupor. So which way will you go this time, Mr. Lifer on the taxpayers dole?

Dissent from the left, and the right writers

From the "Informed Comment" comes this liberal load of b.s., "George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts, Jr. is a setback for American women, just has his policies in Iraq have produced a setback for women's rights in the Arab world. Indeed, Bush has been bad for women all around the globe." That's the liberal brain at work folks. Bush has freed the Iraqi woman from their taskmasters and this liberal writer Mr. Juan Cole has the gall to say that Bush has set them back? The women in Iraq have just voted for the first time EVER! So does Mr. Cole feels that woman should not be allowed to vote? Talk about a partisan fool, this guy takes the cake.

But Roberts may have some problems coming from the right as well. Conservative columnist Ann Coulter chimed in with a stinging rebuke of Bush's pick, saying that he might be another Souter, picked by president Bush the first, that turned out to be a disaster for the court. She added: "We don't know much about John Roberts," Coulter writes in a column shortly after the nomination. "Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever."

Most people who know Judge Roberts have only good things to say about him. He seems like a decent man who cares about family and faith. Let us all hope and pray he is the man his appearance has shown him to be while arguing for clients in front of the court, after being confirmed to give judgments sitting behind the court.

© Copyright 2005-2008 The Creative Conservative, All Rights Reserved.

|