UPDATE: Commenter nk suggests that perhaps the attorney Xrlq criticized was just unbelievably clueless. It seems unlikely, especially given his background . . . but you never know.
The Los Angeles Times editorializes in favor of John Roberts this morning. The praise might seem rather faint, judging only by the editorial’s title: Not worth fighting over. But the paper has some genuine compliments for Judge Roberts hidden under that diffident headline:
In a speech about judging he delivered on a college campus in February, Roberts comes off as appealingly modest and — dare we say it? — even open-minded.
. . . .
By now it is clear that Roberts is no crazed ideologue intent on overturning precedents willy-nilly. He appears to be a thoughtful conservative who values and respects the social stability provided by the law’s slow evolution. As such, he may disappoint extremists who’d hoped — and raised money — for an all-out confirmation war. But those same qualities would serve him well on the Supreme Court.
I see this as simply another indication among many that Roberts is going to be confirmed with little trouble.
Counterpunch, no right-wing publication, is reporting that Cindy Sheehan is calling George Bush a “lying bastard” and a “maniac.” She also says:
And the other thing I want him to tell me is “just what was the noble cause Casey died for?” Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil.
She is also using her son’s death as a justification to refuse to pay her taxes for 2004:
Sheehan said defiantly, “My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don’t owe you a penny…you give my son back and I’ll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we’ll put this war on trial.”
Small wonder Bush is not eager to meet with her again — in public or in private.
People are still misrepresenting Judge Roberts’s French fry case. This time it’s a law professor who should definitely know better. Beldar has the details.
The New York Times reported yesterday:
Iraq’s leaders said Friday that they had reached a tentative deal to divide the country’s vast oil wealth between the central government and the provinces, a potentially significant break in the negotiations over a new constitution.
Under the agreement, oil revenue would be shared by the central government and Iraq’s 18 provinces, and split roughly according to their populations. It was unclear which entity would control the money, though one Iraqi leader said it would be the central government.
Yet another example of the incompetence of President Bush. Here he goes and invades Iraq purely for the oil (right, Cindy?) and we don’t get a drop? Not one penny of the revenues?
By the way, the headline of the article is “Iraqi Leaders Reach Tentative Deal on Oil, Removing One Obstacle to a Constitution.” For the benefit of the Cindy Sheehans of the world, shouldn’t the headline clearly say that the U.S. is not taking any of the oil or oil revenues? Just askin’.