home

Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate

By TChris, Section John Roberts
Posted on Tue Aug 09, 2005 at 03:33:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Definition of "lunatic fringe": a group so far to the right that it considers John Roberts too liberal to sit on the Supreme Court.

A conservative group in Virginia said Tuesday it would oppose Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ confirmation because of his work helping overturn a Colorado referendum on gays. The stance by Public Advocate of the United States, which describes itself as a pro-family organization, puts it in opposition to conservative groups that have endorsed Roberts.

The group’s president, Eugene Delgaudio, last year criticized Vice President Cheney (another left wing radical) for suggesting that the concept of freedom extends to gays.

< Another WorldCom Sentence | Appeals Court Reverses Cuban Spies Conviction >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate | 13 comments (13 topical)
    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Proving, yet again, that these people would eat their own young if they thought it would forward the extreme right agenda. Most right wing groups dovetail quite neatly with the Taliban and other such hate groups once you expose their beliefs to the light.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    TChris is always in a hurry to insult conservatives. Public Advocate is apparently a single-issue complainer. Roberts is somewhat enlightened on gay rights, having helped overturn the will of the people in that pursuit, and that happens to be Public Advocate's topic of choice. Some leftist animal-rights groups criticized John Kerry for being a hunter, and he didn't even try to use the law to force others to hunt. Were those complainers "lunatic fringe"?

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Roy, Proving yet again that these people would eat their young if they thought it would forward the extreme left agenda. The right wing has no monopoly on extremism.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Most right wing groups dovetail quite neatly with the Taliban and other such hate groups once you expose their beliefs to the light.
    So true! Could you imagine if we didn't have all of the checks and balances that we have? We'd be like Iran, only Christian. But yet these people never quite see the irony in suggesting the evils in fanatical Isam while attempting to force every American into their own fanatical Christian way of life.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Some leftist animal-rights groups criticized John Kerry for being a hunter, and he didn't even try to use the law to force others to hunt. Were those complainers "lunatic fringe"?
    As an animal activist, I'd say yes. Not the answer you were expecting, eh? Just goes to show that not all of us leftist fit neatly into your little cookie cutter molds you've made for us. Anyone who tries to micromanage someone else's life is on the lunatic fringe. I'm personally no fan of hunting, but I do realize that it is a natural human activity when it is used to procure food and the animal is not wasted in the process. Even though I would never go hunting, I would never try to stop a legitimate hunter from catching his own dinner.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    WTF!? Try responding to Roberts, and not hijacking a thread with lies.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Groups like Public Advocate want to squash any thought, action, or voice that does not square with their holy book, their view of the world, their morals. If that is judicial activism, the entire judicial system is illegitimate according to them. Seems to me groups like this one teeter on the line of advocating overthrow of the US system of government.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    isn't there some law that forbids you from claiming to be "pro-family", while hating a fair chunk of that family? i don't know, some sort of "anti-hypocricy" statute or something? btw, what's the odds of adding spellcheck on here, because clearly mine is, um, lacking! lol

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Completely OT:cpinva, I would suggest spellcheck, like all content on posts, is the responsibility of the poster. And for the most part the language police don't object. If they did the strunks v. chicago style folks would overwhelm every post;-) Also, on a more serious note; some people rely on 'readers', or other methods of understanding and responding to posts. I think most everyone here knows that their posts will be understood, even if they can't read or write in a conventional sense.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    "The right wing has no monopoly on extremism." What? No monopoly? Well, they'll fix that soon enough. Monopoly and no-bid contracts -- that's the ticket. Roberts testified for Operation Rescue and the Army of God in 1991, at the behest of the former Bush admin. The attorney trying the case brought by nurses and doctors (62% of whom said they were under constant, often violent, attack) gave up half of his final statement times TWICE, in order to let John Roberts explain to the jury why dangerous radicals like Randall Terry needed to be protected from the law for their VIOLENT CRIMES. He said it was a form of protest. Yep, and shooting doctors in front of their clinics was the chosen protest method of showing your patriotism to Jesus. Roberts: 'We're going to get on that monopoly thing right away. The only good extremists are Christian extremists.'

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Roberts testified for Operation Rescue and the Army of God in 1991, at the behest of the former Bush admin. The attorney trying the case brought by nurses and doctors (62% of whom said they were under constant, often violent, attack) gave up half of his final statement times TWICE, in order to let John Roberts explain to the jury why dangerous radicals like Randall Terry needed to be protected from the law for their VIOLENT CRIMES.
    Uh, NO. Do a little FactCheck.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    cpinva- Spellcheck may be available through your browser. I use Safari (mac) and under edit in the menu bar is spelling....not that I use it as much as I should.

    Re: Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    guys, i do appreciate the helpful suggestions re: my comments on spellcheck. however, it was really just a joke on myself, and the fact that i tend to be spelling challenged. now, waste no more precious time on my spelling deficiencies.

    Roberts Too Liberal For Public Advocate | 13 comments (13 topical)