OK ... Now for a REAL celebration ...

THIS IS RWR'S ONE HUNDREDTH POST!!!!!!!

YAAAAAYYYY!!

Of course President Bush has given me the perfect thing to post about, the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. This nomination, based on what I'm seeing, is a victory for all of us who support the Constitution.

I think one of the best ways to gauge a nominee's appropriateness for the court is to look at the reaction of the opposition. If you listen to most Donks, you will notice that they have been taken pretty much by surprise. They are all sort of "dancing around the issue". Those who are taking a position are strongly against him. This can only mean one thing - HE IS PERFECT FOR THE JOB!

Evidence:

NARAL (Link omitted due to site actually putting a petition there) says:

If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled...." We must not allow someone who's spent his career advocating ending the right to choose to be appointed to the most important court in our country.

Ok, NARAL, Roberts said that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled ....". Show me exactly where in the Constitution the courts have the authority to make such a decision. Until someone can do that, Judge Roberts is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I further doubt he would actively work to overturn ANY case not brought before him in the court.

I also have to take issue with NARAL's assertion that anyone is out to end any woman's right to choose in the first place. Wasn't there a choice (whether or not to have sex) involved in virtually every situation NARAL is talking about? This argument is just too easy to bury. Most, if not all, pro-life people will make an exception in cases of rape or incest, simply because we haven't proven that the fetus is an actual human. We do, however, think that until it is proven one way or the other, it imperative that any discrepency on the issue be resolved on the side of life. Does this make us "extremists"? If so, exactly how? After all, if that fetus is actually a child, is it not murder to destroy it? If it is not, what harm is there in protecting it? More importantly, how does this position make someone who advocates it an "extremist"?

Another site comes up with this horse-shit:

John Roberts will not uphold the separation of church and state. In 1992, he co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies.

First of all, idiot, THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CURCH AND STATE IN THE CONSTITUTION. Furthermore, it is completely inappropriate for the government to interfere with anyone's practice of religion, even at a high school graduation. Prayer in public is completely appropriate per the First Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How exactly do you make the case that Judge Roberts is failing to uphold the Constitution? It's pretty clear in the First Amendment that interfering with people's free practice of religion is ILLEGAL. Looks to me like he's holding up the law. What exactly is your gripe?

Granted, both of these sites were set up by organizations that were going to oppose President Bush's nomination, even if it were Bill Clinton, but it's nice to see that the Left has already started seething over what seems to be a pretty good constitutionalist judge. Works for me!

RWR