Yep, Bush is refusing to offer relevant documents from the career of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to the Senate. Why would anyone want to know details of someone's career before giving them a lifetime appointment? Are the Dems really rolling over on this one? Americans won't think you're obstructionist if you stand on principle and list the other nominees who've provided similar information. Americans won't think you're obstructionist when you list all the pillars of our society that Roberts opposes based on the records we do have. Heck, even Republicans admit the info that did slip out is damaging.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a staunch supporter of the president's judicial nominees, acknowledged that some of Roberts' written comments will elicit "some tough questions" from the committee. But he added: "These are comments made a long time ago. I suspect, like most of us, that with additional life experience, his views have matured."So according to even Republicans, John Roberts needs to reject stances he's made in the past. When do you draw a line in the sand? If it's not for someone who lied about their links to the Federalists, forgot about being a lobbyist, someone who thought the Reagan Administration was too LIBERAL, someone who repeatedly mocked the idea of women's rights and the fact that they face discrimination, someone who repeatedly showed a disdain for basic rights like the right to vote or the separation of church and state and someone who keeps secret about his work for a number of years in the government, well if you don't draw a line in the sand on him, when do you?
