Right Wing News - I'd like to take a contrary view on this subject, one that many of my reactionary conservative brethren will surely disagree with. Personally, I think it's very courageous and appropriate for the New York Times to investigate the children of John Roberts.
I mean, take little Jack, for example. Everyone saw the kid dancing around, right? It's entirely plausible that sort of "acting out" could be a result of John Roberts pouring toxic sludge into the habitat of a spotted owl at the behest of Haliburton. Perhaps that may sound farfetched, but unless we have documentation proving that it didn't happen, I think the Democrats may need to filibuster rather than allow an extremist judge to wipe out the noble spotted owl.
Also, did you notice the daughter, little 5 year old Josie clinging to her mother's skirt while President Bush was talking? That could, quite possibly, be some sort of traumatic reaction to hearing her father say that he would let his personal beliefs interfere with his decisions from the bench. That is certainly something that needs to be investigated.
Moreover, let's be very frank here: the fact that John Roberts would adopt children at all, as if children were some sort of property which could be passed around, is a strong indication that he wants to take this country back to pre-Civil War days, where people could be treated as property. Do you want 130 years of civil rights progress wiped out? If not, then tell your Congressman to vote against John Roberts.
Last but not least, it's very important to find out if little Jack or Josie have ever had temper tantrums or broken the rules in a game because those are things they could have conceivably learned from their father. Do we really want a man with a berserk, out of control temper who believes in breaking the rules on our Supreme Court? I think not!
So, kudos to the New York Times for going after the Roberts' kids. It's a dirty, filthy, rotten, stinking job, but somebody had to do it! |
