Are these five facts in Robert's History enough to stop or even get media?

[papau]

Reproductive and Privacy Rights: Roberts urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade while arguing before the Court as Deputy Solicitor General in a case that did not even directly concern that issue. His brief plainly states that "Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Separation of Church and State: Roberts argued against clear First Amendment protections for religious liberty and in favor of officially sponsored school prayer at graduation ceremonies before the Supreme Court, which rejected his argument.

Environmental Protections: As a judge, Roberts suggested in a dissent that the Endangered Species Act was unconstitutional as applied to a California development case.

Veteran Protections: Roberts argued American POWs tortured in Iraq during the Gulf War should not be able to utilize federal courts to pursue their claims.

Excessive Arrest Procedures: Roberts ruled against a 12-year old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation.

[fortyfeetunder]

1. Oh, but he's--"a known quantity"

So say his Pug compadres. No reason to "Start all over" on the confirmation process, when he was "unanimously ...16-3" for the DC Circuit Court, another "lifelong position"....

[SpiralHawk]

2. That Veterans "protection" argument is sure to be interesting

I would hop right on that research bandwagon if I were calling the Dem shots.

Where are the so-called "Swift" Vets when something real is on the line for our soldiers? I mistrust their claimed patriotism altogether. Time to stand up for the real America, not the corporate-oil BushCo propaganda fascist machine.

[papau]

3. Interesting media analysis this morning - Dems advise Bush individually -

and were thereby ineffective - 44 egos to feed, but no Democratic Party to be seen.

(From the ABCNote:"By suggesting that Mr. Bush was giving serious consideration to a woman or minority even if he did not choose one in the end, the White House may have minimized any political repercussions Mr. Bush may have suffered by choosing a man to replace the court's first woman.""Several Democratic aides said their party may have squandered Bush's overture by suggesting a surfeit of possible nominees and responding individually to calls from the West Wing, instead of making one focused argument. The result, these aides said, was that Bush was free to disregard the advice without having to answer for any particular rejection." and "The Los Angeles Times editorial board calls Roberts a "shrewd choice." "Roberts may be more of a chamber of commerce-type than a social conservative with a burning desire to become a judicial activist intent on saving America from itself. He may not be in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas though we may come to eat those words; check back in a few years."