If it's True...and it's Roberts

[RagAss]

Let's not waste another minute discussing it here.. Let's get right back on Rove and Treason now or we will regret it later. Keep the heat on the MSM or we lose on both battlefronts.

[keeplaughing]

1. Saw this on another site

called Democracy Cell Project. I think it's bang on:

BUSH TO OFFER TELEVISED DISTRACTION FROM CIA LEAK TONIGHT

Not that we didn’t know it was coming… the media have begun to ask actual questions during the press briefings, polling is showing that a large majority of Americans think Rove should be fired if he was involved in the leak, and the President is back-peddling madly from his earlier tough talk on the leak situation.

Look over here, everybody! I’ve got big news! Way bigger than that silly CIA agent story… I’m going to nominate a Judge to the Supreme Court!

Well, you know what? It doesn’t matter. ....
snip

And as part of the “stop talking about the White House leak” program, I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that the Supreme Court nomination process will be quite lengthy, quite complex, quite Byzantine in feature... all this to keep the media, once so thoroughly terrified and gagged by this administration, from continuing to exhibit signs of life.

Will the press go chasing after the pork chop dangling from the stick, or will they keep asking the questions that need to be asked? The question is not whether Karl Rove has met a standard that will result in conviction. The question is whether the Bush Administration and the Republican Party can keep a straight face while clutching the national security mantle and looking the other way on a wartime intelligence leak from inside their own White House.

Moments ago, they were taking callers on Public Radio, in response to the question, “Do people in your neighborhood care about the Karl Rove CIA leak?” I tried to call in, but by the time I got through, the girl on the other end of the line said they had already received enough calls from people who care about the leak – they were hoping to get some calls from people who didn’t care.

Ken Mehlman… please come to the White Courtesy Phone… Ken Mehlman…

Posted by Victoria Ellen at 05:40 PM |
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/

[RagAss]

2. Thanks for the good news.... someone is waking up out there

[Imalittleteapot]

3. Well, he hasn't distracted me.

I will not discuss. So, Cheney is the leaker?

[papau]

4. Naral's old fact sheet on John Roberts included the statements below:

Naral's old fact sheet on John Roberts included the statements below:

NARAL: REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM & CHOICE JUNE 2001
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Previously nominated by President George Bush to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1992.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, 1989-93.

"The Court was so accustomed to the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Roberts¡¦ oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice asked, ¡§Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?¡¨ He responded, ¡§No, your honor, the issue doesn¡¦t even come up.¡¨ To this the justice said, ¡§Well that hasn¡¦t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.¡¨Transcript of Oral Argument of John Roberts, Jr., dated Oct. 16, 1991, Bray v. Alexandria Women¡¦s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No. 90-985).

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that ¡§e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled¡K. he Court¡¦s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion¡K finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.¡¨Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 89-1392).
In Rust v. Sullivan -500 U.S. 173 (19917), the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.ƒnRoberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, argued as amicus curiae for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the
protesters¡¦ behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion. Intervening as amicus is a wholly discretionary decision on the part of the Solicitor General. Here the government chose to involve itself in a case in support of those who sought to deprive women of the right to choose. Roberts argued that the protesters¡¦ blockade and protests merely amounted to an expression of their opposition to abortion and that a civil rights remedy was therefore inappropriate.

[RagAss]

5. kick

[ScotTissue]

6. Kicking Rove out is more important than the SC for 20 years?

You gotta be kidding me.

Attack on both fronts, but the SC is more important.

[RagAss]

7. We can't do anything about Roberts...they'll pull the nuke

option. Then what are we looking at? A lost SC fight and weeks and weeks of Rove out of the news. We need to score whatever jabs we can.