From Smear To Eternity
There's not much you can say about the sheer malevolence of extreme left groups like NARAL as evinced by the newest anti-Roberts TV ad they're running, other, perhaps, than to call for their offices to be bo....
Um, never mind....
Outrageous? Unconscionable? Well, apparently not to six of the Justices:
Ed Whelan pounced on this vicious sliming like a starving tiger on a three legged-water buffalo in several posts (here, here, here, and here) over at NRO's Bench Memos. To summarize:
*Bray v. Alexandria Clinic had nothing to do with anti-abortuary violence, but rather clinic obstruction and trespassing, and Judge Roberts argued, quite reasonably, that blocking access to abortion mills does not constitute an act, much less a violent one, against "all women."
*Judge Roberts never “excuse[d] violence against other Americans.” In fact, there were already plenty of laws that criminalized violence, including outside abortuaries (which is what made the 1994 FACE Act such a load of unconstitutional political grandstanding). Roberts never took issue with them, because they were not germane to the argument he was making and the case in which he was making it.
*Another amicus brief in Bray supporting Judge Roberts' position was submitted by seventeen individuals “who have been or are actively involved in the civil rights, anti-poverty, labor and peace movements” and who “share a common belief in the importance of nonviolent resistance to injustice,” highlighting for all to see the selective application of government repression sought by the pro-aborts.
*While serving in the White House counsel's office, Judge Roberts argued that abortuary bombers should get no special consideration for pardons on the grounds that "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals.”
The latter was reported in a WaPo story three days before this NARAL tar & feathering started airing.
Watching the Left try to "get" John Roberts is like watching an old lady trying to swat a bee with a broomhandle: there's lots of activity and frustrated cursing, and very little success.
Makes you wonder when they'll just say to hell with it and set off a "bug bomb" - and whether Republicans will have the courage to fumigate if they do.
UPDATE: The folks at FactCheck.com have the full low-down. (HT: B4B/GOP Bloggers)
Um, never mind....
NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights advocacy group is hitting the airwaves starting Wednesday with their message that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is a judge "whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans,” according to a MSNBC report.
The $500,000 ad campaign targets a legal brief then-assistant solicitor general Roberts filed in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, a 1993 case, in which he said the Civil Rights Act of 1871 did not apply to violent abortion protestors - that state remedies were adequate.
Outrageous? Unconscionable? Well, apparently not to six of the Justices:
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court concurred with Roberts’s argument, finding there was no racial or class-based hatred as their motive, as required in order to be covered by the 1871 act.
Ed Whelan pounced on this vicious sliming like a starving tiger on a three legged-water buffalo in several posts (here, here, here, and here) over at NRO's Bench Memos. To summarize:
*Bray v. Alexandria Clinic had nothing to do with anti-abortuary violence, but rather clinic obstruction and trespassing, and Judge Roberts argued, quite reasonably, that blocking access to abortion mills does not constitute an act, much less a violent one, against "all women."
*Judge Roberts never “excuse[d] violence against other Americans.” In fact, there were already plenty of laws that criminalized violence, including outside abortuaries (which is what made the 1994 FACE Act such a load of unconstitutional political grandstanding). Roberts never took issue with them, because they were not germane to the argument he was making and the case in which he was making it.
*Another amicus brief in Bray supporting Judge Roberts' position was submitted by seventeen individuals “who have been or are actively involved in the civil rights, anti-poverty, labor and peace movements” and who “share a common belief in the importance of nonviolent resistance to injustice,” highlighting for all to see the selective application of government repression sought by the pro-aborts.
*While serving in the White House counsel's office, Judge Roberts argued that abortuary bombers should get no special consideration for pardons on the grounds that "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals.”
The latter was reported in a WaPo story three days before this NARAL tar & feathering started airing.
Watching the Left try to "get" John Roberts is like watching an old lady trying to swat a bee with a broomhandle: there's lots of activity and frustrated cursing, and very little success.
Makes you wonder when they'll just say to hell with it and set off a "bug bomb" - and whether Republicans will have the courage to fumigate if they do.
UPDATE: The folks at FactCheck.com have the full low-down. (HT: B4B/GOP Bloggers)
posted by JASmius at 9:15 AM
<<< Home