Big Surprise

Again, the Liberal MSM is trying to make John Roberts into some extremist right-winger.

Here's a new headline from Yahoo News: Roberts Disparaged States' Sex-Bias Fight---

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts disparaged state efforts to combat discrimination against women in Reagan-era documents made public Thursday — and wondered whether "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

So I guess he hates women. I happen to think that "encouraging homemakers to become lawyers" does not contribute to the common good. Since more women have entered the work place, this country has really gone to hell. Children don't have any manners and get into all sorts of trouble because their mothers, who used to supervise them and teach them good manners, are too busy at work. We have more crime, more teenage pregnancies, more troubled children, and more broken homes.

Another not really "Big Surprise" in the article is this:

Emily's List, which works to elect female candidates, drew attention to a recent speech by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., in which Boxer raised the possibility of a filibuster if Roberts doesn't elaborate on his views on abortion and privacy rights at his hearings.

"I have the ultimate step," Boxer said. "I can use all the parliamentary rules I have as a senator to stand up and fight for you."

Did we demand Ruth Bader Ginsburg elaborate on her extremely extreme Leftist views on abortion and privacy rights at her hearings? This is an Abortion Litmus test. This is wrong.

And who does Barbara Boxer think she is? "I have the ultimate step." Does she think she is the (God forbid) President? Honestly, someone needs to remind her of her place.

And what a great way to end the story---a typical snide liberal comment on something that really has no bearing on anything:

An administration official nominated an aide who had been a teacher but then became a lawyer. Roberts signed off on the nomination, then wrote: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."

More than a decade later, Roberts married an attorney.

Apparently, the writers of this story don't realize that in none of the quotes they use does John Roberts actually say women shouldn't be lawyers. So really, the point is moot.

I also hope liberals note that even though John Roberts didn't necessarily agree with something about the nominee, he still signed off on the nomination! If they want to look intelligent (note: only look intelligent---that is no guarantee that they actually will be), Libs might follow his lead.