Why doesn't the media check to see which SCOTUS 'candidates' are in town??

[TahitiNut]

The media pundits seem to be scooping shit out of their own assholes and letting the vapors guide their prognostications. Are their cellular phones only good for getting the White House talking points?? Just how freaking difficult would it be for them to check and see which of the probable candidates is even in D.C.??? I keep thinking they can't demonstrate more sloth and simple-mindedness ... and then they do. :grr:

[Fridays Child]

1. What? Do their jobs? Surely, you jest.

Wouldn't that require brain cells?

[peacetalksforall]

2. The answer is that they probably know 'inside the beltway'. Why miss

a chance for those of us 'outside the beltway' to miss watching one of their commercials as we wait on pins and needles to learn what the marionette PNAC handlers have come up with. Tonight all the outside the beltway born-agains are going to be delirious (up or down).

[TahitiNut]

3. It's John G. Roberts. -- Federalist Society member (of course)

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
50 years old
Lifetime Republican
Has stated Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled
Pro-business (i.e. "property") and anti-environment (i.e. "people")


http://www.independentjudiciary.com/nominees/nominee.cfm?NomineeID=5

Reproductive Rights. As a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.