Edwards?

Grrr. Roberts.

Can't change it now. Blah.

Biden decrying the kabuki dance? How did he manage to keep a straight face?

Besides the fact that it's painted on, I mean.

I noticed that too. But I figured you were just taking a page from the Democratic playbook and trying to start some wild lie about Edwards.

Although, my first thought was you could have picked a better target. How about Hillary?
"Hillary is an extremist"

Eh, nevermind...that falls under the "Well Duh!" category.

Mitch writes:

"25 years of public service law gigs. The man's (Roberts) got a paper trail."

Yes he does. Of course, when the paper trail painted him in some unflattering tones, he was quick to assert he was a staff lawyer (or a young lawyer ... or a young staff lawyer) who was only writing for his boss (or his client ... or his boss, the client) and thus the reader needed to read the statements in that context.

For example, Roberts provides an explanation for a memo he wrote while in the Reagan administration:

"And the articulation of views that you read from represented my effort to articulate the views of the administration and the position of the administration for whom I worked, for which I worked 23 years ago."

And, when asked how to square the written material with current issues, he'd demur because those issues may come back to the court and he wouldn't want to prejudice his standing and ability to independently judge the matters that would be at hand. For example:

ROBERTS: "Well, I don't think -- on the question of legislative attempts, I think my view is the same now as it was 24 years ago, which is that these are -- it's a bad idea. It's bad policy.

"I was talking about the other question about whether it's constitutional or not. And on that, of course, I don't think I should express a determinative view because, as you know, these proposals do come up and one may be enacted.

"And if that is the case, then I'd have to address that question on the court. It could be on the court I'm on now or another court."

Finally some of the "paper trail" is not available -- either it's been lost or won't be provided under "Executive Privilege."

I think in the final analysis that Roberts will be confirmed and I suspect that there will be some Democrats who will vote for him ... maybe even some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. He's a much more impressive candidate than was Thomas and I think that he could be a decent Justice and even a decent Chief Justice.

Strategically, I think we Democrats have no other recourse ... there's no record of an ideologue and he has an excellent reputation as a "lawyer's lawyer" and a superb litigator.

And we may well need to "keep our powder dry" for the next nominee. Can Bush find another Roberts?

Mitch writes:

"25 years of public service law gigs. The man's (Roberts) got a paper trail."

Yes he does. Of course, when the paper trail painted him in some unflattering tones, he was quick to assert he was a staff lawyer (or a young lawyer ... or a young staff lawyer) who was only writing for his boss (or his client ... or his boss, the client) and thus the reader needed to read the statements in that context.

For example, Roberts provides an explanation for a memo he wrote while in the Reagan administration:

"And the articulation of views that you read from represented my effort to articulate the views of the administration and the position of the administration for whom I worked, for which I worked 23 years ago."

And, when asked how to square the written material with current issues, he'd demur because those issues may come back to the court and he wouldn't want to prejudice his standing and ability to independently judge the matters that would be at hand. For example:

ROBERTS: "Well, I don't think -- on the question of legislative attempts, I think my view is the same now as it was 24 years ago, which is that these are -- it's a bad idea. It's bad policy.

"I was talking about the other question about whether it's constitutional or not. And on that, of course, I don't think I should express a determinative view because, as you know, these proposals do come up and one may be enacted.

"And if that is the case, then I'd have to address that question on the court. It could be on the court I'm on now or another court."

Finally some of the "paper trail" is not available -- either it's been lost or won't be provided under "Executive Privilege."

I think in the final analysis that Roberts will be confirmed and I suspect that there will be some Democrats who will vote for him ... maybe even some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. He's a much more impressive candidate than was Thomas and I think that he could be a decent Justice and even a decent Chief Justice.

Strategically, I think we Democrats have no other recourse ... there's no record of an ideologue and he has an excellent reputation as a "lawyer's lawyer" and a superb litigator.

And we may well need to "keep our powder dry" for the next nominee. Can Bush find another Roberts?

televises shoppers fetching inducing habitually exquisitely ...

azimuth.excess?Joplin evince Holmdel fed Pakistani ... Thanks!!!

csHi. May be this is BAD, but is something different: stocking slut
http://soiledpanties.getgirlfriends.com/
stockings and suspenders photography
http://soiledpanties.getgirlfriends.com/stockings-and-suspenders-photography.html
girls in stockings free
http://soiledpanties.getgirlfriends.com/girls-in-stockings-free.html
private pantyhose
http://soiledpanties.getgirlfriends.com/private-pantyhose.html
elegant stocking pics
http://soiledpanties.getgirlfriends.com/elegant-stocking-pics.html

pinhole Peruvian.squinted Mississippians overrule insulating northwards relent: