Once January 21st arrives and Obama is still alive and healthy, then I'll breathe a sight of relief and wave a long-awaited buh-bye to Bush. In the meantime, there's still so much more damage Bush can do.
WASHINGTON — While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.
A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.
A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were reacting strongly Wednesday to President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination.
The president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, said: "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe vs. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion.
Feminists for Life has sponsored a national advertising campaign aimed at ending abortion in America. One of its mission statements proclaims: "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."
Jane Roberts was a volunteer member of Feminists for Life's board of directors from 1995 to 1999. She has provided legal assistance to the group and been recognized as a contributor who donated from $1,000 to $2,500.
The president of Feminists for Life, Serrin M. Foster, said Roberts maintained her ties by advising the group on how to draw up incorporation and not-for-profit papers.
She also has written for the group's newsletter, Foster said, including an article about adoption. Roberts and her husband have adopted two children.
"She's a brilliant attorney, and we're really proud that she lent her legal services to us to help serve the needs of women," Foster said. "She was a very good board member. She was invaluable as an attorney for us."
Foster said that she had met John Roberts, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but that the judge had not been involved with Feminists for Life.
Judge Roberts' public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent.
In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote.
His brief added: "The [Supreme] Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
But during the 2003 Senate confirmation hearings on his appellate court nomination, Roberts took the position that abortion rights were no longer debatable.
"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he told lawmakers. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
But abortion rights groups are convinced that Roberts is opposed to abortion.
"He's absolutely anti-Roe," Gandy said. "He believes it was wrongly decided and should be reversed." Asked then why Roberts two years ago proclaimed Roe vs. Wade a "settled" issue, Gandy responded: "You have to say that. You can't get on the court without saying you will follow legal precedent. All the most extreme nominees say that. You can't even take the oath of office [unless] you say that."
Jane Roberts graduated magna cum laude from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., in 1976. In 1984, she graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.
She practices and is a partner with the Washington firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman, mostly concentrating on the firm's communications and global sourcing groups.
A close friend characterized her as an "extremely, extremely devout Catholic" who had enjoyed her antiabortion advocacy.
The Catholic News Service in Washington, which praised Judge Roberts and cited his government brief in 1990 challenging Roe vs. Wade, also spoke kindly of Jane Roberts.
"She has been active in Feminists for Life, and is a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic lay organization that sponsors the annual Washington archdiocesan Red Mass before the opening of the Supreme Court term," the news service said.
It also pointed out that if John Rogers were to be elevated to the Supreme Court, he would be the fourth Catholic justice on the current court, along with Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
Before Jane Roberts joined the board of Feminists for Life, the organization filed amicus briefs on abortion with the Supreme Court. Records show that the group filed briefs supporting the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, a law aimed at limiting the right to abortions, particularly for minors.
Several antiabortion groups including Feminists for Life also filed a brief in support of the right of abortion protesters to picket a Virginia women's health clinic. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the courts did not have the authority to limit protesters' access to such clinics.
And Feminists for Life filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of laws in Ohio and Missouri that attempted to limit the rights to an abortion under Roe vs. Wade.
*
Times staff writers Walter F. Roche Jr. and Benjamin Weyl in Washington contributed to this report.
He said that if asked to choose between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, ''I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.'' Jefferson knew that a free and adversarial press was the people's best defense against the excesses of their government and a fundamental building block of healthy democracy.
Unfortunately, that was 40 presidents ago.
The present president has a decidedly different view of the news media's role. His administration sees the press as a thing to be bought. In fact, while political manipulation of the news is hardly new, Team Bush has a long and singularly sordid record of trying to turn the media into a wholly owned public relations subsidiary.
Now they're taking their act on the road. And get this: They're doing it under the guise of building democracy. Which is rather like stealing from the collection plate under the guise of giving to the needy.
I refer you to last week's Los Angeles Times report that the Pentagon has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories, written by American troops, that reflect favorably upon the U.S. mission in that country. The stories, while basically factual, are reportedly written so as to flatter U.S. forces and the Iraqi government and to omit information or perspectives either might find embarrassing. These press releases are presented to the Iraqi people as independent reports by independent reporters.
One is appalled, but hardly surprised. After nearly five years of watching these folks' truth-optional approach to dealing with the public, one is seldom surprised anymore.
BUYING PRAISE
This is, after all, the same Bush administration that was caught buying praise from an ethically challenged columnist -- in violation of federal laws against propagandizing the public, according to a September report by the Government Accountability Office. It's the same administration that allowed into the White House press room as a reporter an Internet porn entrepreneur who wrote for a GOP website. The same one that issues video reports favorable to its policies to be broadcast without attribution as TV news. The same one that censors and quashes its own scientific studies when they conflict with its preferred worldview.
So this is just more of the same in a new ZIP Code.
It will be argued by the usual sycophantic Bush enablers that what's being done is justifiable. We are at war, they will say, and in war it is perfectly acceptable to propagandize the enemy.
So it is. But the flaw in that logic is this: We are not at war with Iraq. We are at war in Iraq against insurgents seeking to topple the government. At least, that's the line put forth by Team Bush. Iraq, they say, is a sovereign nation to which we are simply helping bring the joys of democracy -- one of which would be a free press.
That being the case, you cannot justify telling covert lies to its people any more than you can justify telling them to ours. You want to communicate something to them? Buy an ad. Drop leaflets. Put up posters. But don't produce a commercial and tell people it's news.
CREDIBILITY AT STAKE
Doing so undermines both the message and the medium. It could also conceivably encourage Iraqis to question how seriously they should take -- how seriously we ourselves take -- this whole notion of a free and independent press.
Indeed, one can only guess how this is playing with Iraqi journalists. After all, the messages could hardly be more mixed. On the one hand, U.S. officials are offering them workshops in media ethics. On the other hand, U.S. officials are violating the most basic media ethics with blithe indifference.
But then, it's a sour joke in the first place that the Bush administration purports to teach Iraqis how democracy works.
Our house........
Is a 600 sq ft cottage. The best part about it is the HUGE fenced in yard (for our dogs). It was all we could afford when we were house hunting. It needs work, I would love just a small addition, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. I guess I have to be happy with the fact that we are not drowning in heat bills.
Our old house
was a 24x32 bungalow, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath. Try squeezing 3 boys, a cousin, and a friend in that. We had just finished remodeling the whole thing when we got flooded out. Then we started building the one on higher ground, but the foundation of the old one started caving in from the undermining of the flood water. The floor and the walls spread 3 feet apart. But we lived like that for 3 more years trying to get the new place done. We finally couldn't wait any longer.
I believe the Democrats will take the House
and pick up seats in the Senate enough to make it very even. When Lieberman is elected as an Independent, I predict he will change his party to Democrat when he gets into the Senate, a direct slam at the Democrats who failed to support him. Lieberman, the only Democrat with a spine, will be the big winner. I am not gnashing my teeth about any of this. Democrats are the one who do the teeth gnashing. They have been gnashing since Bush won the first election and their bitterness and sore loser attitudes have eaten away like a cancer all these years. Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands... The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder. Republicans have been far from perfect in this war. They have barely approached mediocrity in their handling of domestic issues. But to change horses and leaders mid-war is a prescription for a longer engagement, because this is a confrontation that will end only in victory or defeat for one side or the other. That’s why the Republicans need to keep their majority and conservatives need to keep the pressure on them to get back to the original GOP principles that brought them that majority. That’s a better strategy than Republicans acting like Democrat-lite. Unfortunately, I think it is too late this time around. But there is always next time. God Bless our troops.
Bush house
That neighborhood was pricey 50 years ago.
Is this what the US needs in the White House?
??????
I think NOT.
That's where we really need the house cleaning - sm
In the senate & house (congress or whatever that place is where all the politician vote on issues). All of them should be recalled, fired, whatever (and not be sent back to their home state where they can continue with the damage). Pelosi, Dodd, Franks should be the top 3 to go and then quite a few more. People should get more involved in what it is their senator is voting for and if it is not for the good of the people there needs to be a march or something and these so called senators asked to leave. And if they don't leave we need some bouncers to go in and literally remove them from the position. If you have a worker that is fired they are removed immediately from the premises and that should be the way it works with politicians too.
Can they see Russia from their house? A house divided...
Unfortunately, until we can get over ourselves, we won't. I just wonder how bad it will have to get before we wake up.
I guess we'll find out soon.
A house negro? What?!...sm
I have never even heard that term before. What is a "house" negro supposed to mean anyways?
In the White House, someone who has kept the
nm
I sure wish I could afford to buy a house right now!
Almost 1/3 of the houses in my small town that are for sale are foreclosed. They're all cute little Victorians, and I'd just LOVE to have any one of them.
That's how he bought his house......
With the money paid on his book deals.....yes, frugal by choice and probably habit. If I got that much of an advance on my books, the first thing I'd do is buy a gorgeous house in a nice neighborhood to raise my kids.
My house has been broken into, as well...
a far cry from a war on our soil.
Yes, yes. I have 1/2 mile from my house.
x
Considering what we got in the white house, that's all
xx
we already have a racist in the white house
George Bush does not like black people
Mr. Bugliosi went before the house judiciary...
committee when they discussed impeachment, and they were not impressed enough, even with a Democratic majority, to start impeachment proceedings. What I read about that tells me all I need to know. How a seemingly rational human being can think that one man could so manipulate not only this government but foreign governments as well who said the intelligence was real, and ignore the fact that the Clinton Administration was talking regime change in Iraq, even authored the Iraqi Liberation Act...and still think that Bush all alone and by himself lied to the world (these same people who call him a bumbling ignoramus today) and made them all believe it...you can honestly tell me that he was intelligent enough to pull off that kind of hoax with all the checks and balances of this government and in the world...and you really believe that? It is not that I am a Bush fan...because he has done a lot of things I certainly don't agree with. But to try to blame the Iraq war on one man...and lay absolutely NO blame at the feet of the intelligence agencies, the head of the CIA that he inherited from Clinton, or at Congress for voting for it...makes absolutely no sense to me, and I would be saying the same thing if it were a Dem president people were trying to railroad.
Okay, I won't say anything about someone wanting to sell books, since I have not read Bugliosi's. However, as far as brisk sales, I believe "Obama Nation" went straight to #1 on the New York Times best seller list and may still be there. Have you read that one? And "The Case Against Barack Obama" debuted at #5. Just in case you are interested. I am about halfway through that one, and I am putting it to the test...I am independently verifying every point made (amazing what you can find in public record on the internet). Maybe I am not the only one that needs to move out of my "comfort zone" maybe? Perhaps you should too. You might be surprised at what you find, to coin your words.
Frankly, I am not that interested in Bush. He is on his way out. Like I said...I have several problems with him. But, as much as many people would like to, it is just not logical to blame him alone for the war in Iraq. Any more than it would be to blame Obama if he were in the same set of circumstances, or anyone else. I believed Clinton when he said Iraq had WMD and tortured and killed his own people, and I believed Bush when HE said the same thing.
In Bristol's house, choice was never
Who know's? If she had felt comfortable enough to come to her mother about birth control, she may not now be in the position to (In Palin's own word) "grow up faster than we had ever thought." Furthermore, this begs the question of sex education taboos, both in the household and in the schools, parental controls over acess to education, the judgment involved in making these decision about access to education and birth control and so forth. Guess Plain was having a bit of difficulty balancing her priorities while governor. Of course, lost in the shuffle is the fact that no one will ever know how Bristol feels about her siutation, the decisions that she may or may not have made herself and the national spotlight she now finds herself in. This coming out of the ethics-housekeeper's own house. Unwittingly, she has really shone a brand new light on herself and the issues at hand. Way to go, Palin. John McCain probably knows by now that maybe he should have done a bit more homework before he got himself and his party into this pickle.
I really hope that the house does not approve...sm
the bill from the senate with all the addendums. Why can't we have a clean bill without things being added on? The house vote is our last chance and I hope they don't cave without making changes. I am proud to say that one of my senators, Bernie Sanders-I voted against it, and he IS the most liberal senator, not Obama.
With all the Christians in the house, we can't muster up
Wow. Class act, I must say.
White house butler guy.....you can't be serious.
He will be one of Obama's top advisors. You can't be that naive.
As to the Chicago political machine...google it. The Daleys of Chicago...crooked as a dog's hind leg comes to mind...you don't remember the current Mayor daley's dad?
Can't believe you never heard of the Chicago political machine. Obama was part of it, and he is bringing it with him to the White House. Yeah, that concerns me...and last time I looked, I have a right to be concerned.
The White House Butler guy
Ever see One Life to Live. Remember Asa Buchanan's butler, Nigel? Nigel knew more about Asa than his own family. OF COURSE, I understand what a Chief of Staff is. The position still sounds like a great big butler to me...one who sees all and knows all, exercises great discretion and is trusted by his employer.
To begin, I live in a parallel universe from you. I have no reason whatsoever to Google Chicago politial machine. I have seen the term thrown around here and there in paranoid rants and I am also acutely aware of how Chicago politics has been depicted by the right-wingers ever since the 60s...my mom being my prime source on that one (a Goldwater republican). I do not share this world view. When I think of Chicago politics, I think in terms of ideology, but that is a different story from this.
I was simply trying to get you to explain YOUR take on it and also why it is that you find so much fault ALREADY with Rahm Emanuel. He certainly will not be Obama's only advisor. As a matter of fact, Obama is bound to surround himself with many, many advisors from both sides of the aisle who represent a very WIDE variety of viewpoints, all of which he will listen to, consider, draw conclusions, formulate plans and policy initiatives and execute what he feels best. That's my thing. I was simply trying to get you to explain yours.
Humor police in the house....(sm)
The intent of the post was not to compare an embryo to a turkey, but rather simply a joke saying that she would take up one cause but not the other. If you read the posts below you might understand the joke.
However, since you mentioned it, I'm sure I could make that comparrison. Our ideas of when life begins are obviously not the same.
This has nothing to do with Bush. My whole point of this was not to worship Bush here. My whole point was that I was blindsided by our government and I refuse to sit back and not be informed with Obama as president. I want to stay in the know so I can make my own decisions and keep tabs on things. I just think that President Obama has made A LOT of promises already and the man hasn't even been pres for a whole week yet and he has already broken some of his promises. I am going to hold this president and any future president's feet to the fire from now on. I don't care if they are dem, pub, or whatever......
House passes Obama
The stimulus package passed by a vote of 244-188. Eleven Democrats voted against the measure, while no Republicans supported it.
Nice to see the WH being used as a party house - NOT
I can hear founding fathers rolling over in their graves. Who knew that we'd have someone who thinks the white house is his own little party houses with Wednesday night Conga lines. And hey, who needs music awards anymore, their being given away behind closed doors at the WH. If it's going to be a party house maybe they should have the decency to take down the pictures of our founding fathers. What a disgrace!
I know for us $25,000 is a lot of money, but in the big picture, that is not a drop in the bucket...
I am sure though if he could go somewhere without all those people going with him that he would be more than happy at this point to do it. I know I would. I do not begrudge him one minute of happiness with his family because the rest of the time everybody in this country is trying to tear him apart. I grew up with guns in the house.
My father had gun racks and he always kept one rifle loaded in case someone tried to break into the house. All three of us kids knew it and we also knew not to touch it. My dad taught us how to shoot, the safe way to use guns, and what NOT to do with a gun. I think the problem with a lot of gun related accidents is that parents hide the guns and don't teach their kids the dangers and how to properly handle guns.
If you take guns away from the law-abiding citizens....it won't stop the criminals from getting them and then we will have nothing to protect ourselves with. That is common sense really. It will just create an even bigger black market for guns and only the unlawful citizens will buy them illegally like that which will leave the lawful citizens unprotected from criminals.
At age 79, Rep. John Dingell is known for his prickly demeanor and blunt words, which have earned him respect. Rep. Dingell's Web Site
Morning Edition, December 13, 2005 · John Dingell (D-MI) marks 50 years in the House on Tuesday. Only two others in history have served longer.
Dingell came to Congress in December 1955, when he won a special election to replace his late father. Dingell speaks fondly of working on massive, important legislation he helped shepherd through Congress, including Medicare, food stamps, student loans, consumer product protection and the Endangered Species Act.
There are a few disappointments, Dingell says. In every single Congress for the last 50 years, he has introduced a bill to create a national health care system -- and it has never passed. The Patient's Bill of Rights he championed in the 1990s also failed. And now, with Republicans in control of the House, Senate and White House, Dingell worries they're dismantling the earlier work of his career.
But you have your choice between sitting back and being depressed and letting it go forward, or standing and fighting, he says. I choose the second course.
marks the location of current message within thread![](http://te.latimes.com/blank.gif"){kind=spacer}
