Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Justice Peppermint Patty

Is it me, or does John Roberts have the same goddamned twerpy little smile in every picture? Sure, sometimes his mouth is open, sometimes it's closed, but it's always there, annoying the hell out of me. It's rather similar to that smug little smirk El Presidente displays whenever he's not looking like a frumpy chimp, an organ grinder's monkey after you don't toss a few coins his way.

There's a couple of articles up on Slate about Roberts, discussing how the man's been forming his entire record so that he would be able to sit on the Supreme Court one day. Didn't the right go into convulsions because Al Gore, and well, John Kerry both just seemed like they'd always wanted to be president? I'm just sayin'. Anyway, the Slate articles discuss whether or not this means Robert would be a prudent justice.

Me? I'm with Pat Leahy. See, the problem with going out of your way to not really take a stand on anything is that you end up not taking a stand on anything, so when you say shit, it sticks. Like, say, endorsing funerals for fetuses as a way of bringing attention to the abortion "tragedy." Now, if that isn't an idea to warm the cockles of Rick Santorum's heart, I don't know what is. Somehow, the media and the right want us to think that this is not significant, at all. Nor is it supposed to be significant that Roberts didn't exactly oppose violence against abortion clinics, even though, yes, he didn't excuse it, either.

In fact, based on everything the Bush administration has seen to leak out of its gigantic anus about Roberts, the one thing that becomes more and more apparent is that when he wasn't being an equivocating weenie, he, as a political appointee, mind you, went above and beyond what was required; the Operation Rescue case being a prime example. Sure, we don't know how he'd vote on a number of cases, because he's done his best not to commit a lot; everything here can be run around with a simple "Oh, I was just advocating on behalf of my client." But at some point, coincidence becomes a trend. If he had just argued on behalf of the Reagan and Bush administrations to the extent of what was required, fine, there's not a lot to be drawn from that. But, shit, if this is the call of duty, Roberts was way the fuck over there, repeatedly.

And even if that's not convincing, we sure as hell know how Roberts would vote on one area. He'll proudly support the Bush administration's ability to do whatever the fuck it wants in the name of the "global struggle against terror" or whatever it is they're calling it now. If that's not a reason to oppose Roberts, you're probably not going to agree that anything is.