Roberts opposed fed laws prohibitting violence vs women.

[genius]

It's a state by state issue. I guess it's OK to beat them up in New York but not in California. How do you feel?

[etherealtruth]

1. Saw it ...

That was genious.

[Nye Bevan]

2. Why is a federal law needed?

Doesn't every state have laws prohibiting beating up women? There are many crimes that need to be prosecuted, but this does not necessarily mean that every crime should be a federal crime.

[gratuitous]

3. So, explain "Judge" Roberts

Why exactly you think a person's human rights are subject to man-made lines on a map? Or don't you think we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights? Aren't you just a fucking atheist, you commie bastard, looking to infiltrate our nation's highest court with your God-denying philosophy?

Damn, but brain-dead demagoguery is easy! No wonder the Repressive Right likes using it so much.

[11cents]

4. I don't see why it should be a federal law either

If this, then why not everything? It's not "OK" to beat up women in either New York or California; assault is a crime in every state. I think liberals should be very cautious about letting political winds dictate what's a federal law and what isn't.

[noonwitch]

5. Most criminal laws are written at the state level

Most criminals are prosecuted in state courts for that reason.

Thank goodness for that, as someone who lives in a death-penalty free state (well, at least for now).

[OneBlueSky]

6. the Violence Against Women Act is up for renewal . . .

and, surprise surprise, the Repugs don't want it renewed . . .