MSM Moutf-foams Against Judge Roberts Again!

The Reasonable opponents of Judge Roberts are persistent. I'll give them that. Finding little traction with the American people by attacking his Catholic Faith, some may have decided that he's too rich and stock-connected to serve--even though other sitting Justices faced similar quandries. AP has the latest hatchet job coverage of the current "controversy." Here are the important details:

John Roberts is an appeals court judge with a multimillion-dollar portfolio, a spouse who is a successful lawyer and a broad roster of clients from his days in private practice.
ADVERTISEMENT

Those all mean he probably will have to disqualify himself from dozens of Supreme Court cases should he become chief justice. It is an situation that, while not unusual, would leave the nine-member court with a potential for tie votes.

Roberts, whose confirmation hearings are to begin Monday, can minimize his problems. For example, he could put his money in mutual funds or other types of investments. But ethics experts say his early years on the Supreme Court will require diligence to avoid conflicts.

Potential personal conflicts, along with questions about his appellate opinions and correspondence as a lawyer during two Republican administrations, are expected to dominate the hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Supreme Court begins its new term Oct. 3 with a full lineup of cases on issues such as abortion and physician assisted suicide, as well as matters that affect a company's bottom line.

By law, judges must not participate in cases brought by companies in which judges or family members own stock — even one share. Justices police themselves when it comes to ethical conflicts and cannot be overruled.

"The justice is a law into himself or herself on that issue," said Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University's School of Law.

Young law school graduates who clerk for justices comb through the thousands of appeals filed each year to find possible conflicts. Justices do not have to explain why they are sitting out a case.

Are there any more non-issues the Reasonable can make hay of? They're out-doing themselves with this one. Even while the writer mouth-foams the carpet, she sneaks the facts that contradict her contention in the middle of the article:

The most frequent cause of conflicts is money.

"Most of the justices try to make their finances a nonissue by not holding significant stocks directly. But there are no rules, and it's ultimately a matter of personal choice," said Washington lawyer Thomas Goldstein who regularly argues cases at the high court and tracks voting trends.

Disqualifications are not uncommon, especially among the wealthier justices who have extensive stocks. Six of the current eight justices are millionaires.

In the past year, there were 112 recusals — when justices take themselves out of a case — in opinions and orders. The court deals with more than 8,000 appeals a year. By Goldstein's count, Justice Stephen Breyer stepped aside 60 times and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor 27.

O'Connor has done so about 730 times during her 24 years on the court, Goldstein said.

Why don't the Reasonable just admit it? They can't stand the Foolishness of a seriously pro-life Justice! They value their state-sanctioned worship of Moloch, and no Fool is going to interrupt their sacrament. It's the key to pursuit of the One Thing that Matters, donchaknow! I'd have more respect for them if they just honestly admitted how ideological their objections to Judge Roberts nomination is. A little honest in political discourse would be a welcome change from the usual stink in the room. But then they might not have their shot at cutting his nomination down. And they can't have that, can they? No, progress must be made! Everyone must have the freedom to pursue the One Thing that Matters. Whether they want to or not.

Mouth-foaming. Carpet. Broom. Keep laughing, Fools! The people already look toward the broom closet.