Leading democrats in congress have generously requested that Bush's Supreme Court appointee meet only two simple requirements. As stated in the Constitution:
1. He must not allow idealogy to interfere with his decisions, and
2. He must be head-over-heels, red-hot, crazy-in-love with abortion.
So far, Judge Roberts hasn't been very forthcoming concerning his opinions about a Woman's Right to Choose. His reluctance to burst into giddy squeals of joy at the mere mention of "abortion" is cause enough for alarm. Nonetheless, gracious democrats were willing to accept him as a "moderate" until evidence could be manufactured to the contrary, and then repeated in a hysterical furvor until it drowns out all else. However, there have been quiet rumblings from the general vicinity of Ted Kennedy's stately blowhole that suggest Roberts is an extremist in moderate's clothing, a religious zealot who seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade and condemn millions of innocent abortionists to death by starvation. While Roberts continues to stonewall, several notes scrawled on the back of a Boston-area buffet menu suggest that Roberts is less than enthusiastic about the concept of tearing a fetus apart inside its mother's womb and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Suddenly, Bush's pick doesn't seem quite the "moderate", does he?
The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice should not be taken lightly. A Woman's Right to Choose is the magic hat from which all other rights are conjured - from a Right to Same-Sex Marriage to a Right to a Living Wage. As a jury member in an active court case, I have a deep respect for the sanctity of our judicial system, and refuse to entrust to a side show freak who becomes squeamish over the thought of a baby's brains being sucked out through its skull so mommy won't have to miss a party.