Tuesday, August 09, 2005

NARAL using swiftboat style techniques

Okay I'm calling a major, FOUL on this one. The ad against John Roberts states:

"Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," the ad states. The ad concludes by saying, "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

Then, NARAL President Nancy Keenan defended the ad but said, "We're not suggesting that Mr. Roberts condones clinic violence."

Let's repeat this one more time...."Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber," the ad states. The ad concludes by saying, "America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans."

Talk about bullshit. Read it for yourself, here is the case.

He did what his job was supposed to be, interpet the law, he's not supposed to say "oh gee these people really suck so I won't argue the point of law for them". Law is all about making sure everything is the same as possible for EVERYONE. Come on NARAL who do you really want as a Supreme Court Justice? One that is going to argue on the basis of does that meet the requirements of the law or one that is going to on a whim decide based on emotion?

Yes, he's a conservative, but I do not agree with this type of tatic that is really dishonest in trying to create an impression that is wrong. It's a purposeful attempt to mislead and your group doing so puts you on the same level as the swiftboaters.

I realize this is not going to probably be popular since most of the more liberal sites are out there making a huge deal about this, but I'd suggest they actually read the case before they assume.

9 comments:

Lisa Renee said...

full text of the ad for those interested:

SCRIPT: Announcer: “Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a woman’s health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.”

Emily Lyons: “When a bomb ripped through my clinic I almost lost my life. I will never be the same.”
Announcer: “Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.”

Emily Lyons: “I’m determined to stop this violence so I’m speaking out.”

Announcer: “Call your senators. Tell them to oppose John Roberts. America can’t afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.”

KEY IMAGES: Bombed Birmingham, Ala., clinic; injured Emily Lyons in a wheelchair; images of John Roberts and rescue workers at the clinic with the words of the Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic superimposed on top; a current picture of Emily Lyons; and the Supreme Court.

I am so sick of the dishonesty on both sides of the political spectrum.

historymike said...

This is twisted and despicable politics at its most heinous.

I thought that Bush found a pretty safe, albeit strict constructionist, candidate in Roberts.

If the mainstream Democrats stand idly by while Roberts gets creamed, they are incredibly stupid. There will be a huge backlash if this political excrement is allowed to be shat out without condemnation.

Cyberseaer said...

I was way too bored to read the case, but I trust that you did and came up with an impartial view. It is sickening the way both sides play. The sad thing is that people will believe it since that is what the TV told them. Why waste time reading for 30 minutes and find the truth when in 30 seconds someone else can tell you what to think.

The ironic thing about Roberts is that most conservatives think he's too left and most liberals think he is too right. In my opinion, he is the perfect choice for the job, since he pisses off everyone.

"I like it when both sides of the court aren't happy. It means that I'm doing my job." - a judge from Law and Order in an episode a few years back.

Lisa Renee said...

I feel the ad totally misrepresents what the main decision of this case was focused on. I do realize most people don't read the decisions because they are long and complicated for those of us who are not lawyers. However here's one key paragraph I think sums up the basis of what was involved here:

Trespassing upon private property is unlawful in all States, as is, in many States and localities, intentionally obstructing the entrance to private premises. These offenses may be prosecuted criminally under state law, and may also be the basis for state civil damages. They do not, however, give rise to a federal cause of action simply because their objective is to prevent the performance of abortions, any more than they do so (as we have held) when their objective is to stifle free speech.

If they have valid complaints against Roberts it is well within their right to protest his nomination. This however isn't valid and given the outrage at this type of misleading bs when it was directed at Democrats? It should not be supported.

Lisa Renee said...

I'd highly recommend reading this letter

National Law

Judge Patel puts it rather nicely.

Paul A. Miller said...

Lisa Renee,

You also may have noticed reports that Roberts did pro bono work for groups fighting for gay rights - something which is making many of my fellow conservatives nervous. Kudos for standing up to NARAL on this.

Lisa Renee said...

Paul, yes I have seen that as well, which to me shows Roberts is a balanced lawyer who interprets the law rather than the emotions of the case behind it.

To me, it's in all of our best interests no matter which side of the political fence we lean towards to demand honest ads. This type of dishonesty serves none of us.

Steve said...

Dont know about Roberts yet. he deserves a chance to be heard.

Swif Boat Tactics are wrong, no matter where it is coming from.

Anonymous said...

Cool blog, interesting information... Keep it UP » » »