Local time where you're at. ("Where you're at"?)

Color Ann Coulter right again – this time, on John Roberts.

Those of you who, like me, are fans of the conservative columnist, will remember that she wasn’t all that fond of the Bush pick to replace Sandy Ditzy O’Bint.

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as deputy solicitor general for a portion of the 1992-93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.’s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, “Hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job.”

Well, Denizens, it’s looking like she was bang-on right about this guy.&#160 Roberts is now saying, in effect, that Roe v. Wade&#160 need not worry.

“Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system,” Roberts wrote. “A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.”

At the same time, Roberts said that “judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited.”

“They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law,” he wrote.

So I guess we can go back to the days of Plessy v. Ferguson,&#160 John-o?&#160 The Dred Scott decision?&#160 Any other bad law you want to revisit on us, Souter-lite?

My apologies, Ann.&#160 After you came out against Roberts, I rather doubted you for a moment.&#160 I figured that, with so many liberal fuckheads screaming about this nomination, Waffleya had finally gotten one right.

Should’ve known better.&#160 This is yet one more wimp-assed nomination by a president who apparently is afraid to nominate a real&#160 conservative to the bench, thus telling the minority&#160 Party of Asses&#153 what they could go do with themselves.

Get ready for more of the same bullshit from the Not-so-supreme Court, guys.&#160 And maybe OneOfTheseDays&#153 we’ll learn not to trust anyone named Bush…

More »