If you read the column to its end you see that Dionne effectively ends up blaming the Bush administration for the NARAL advertisement.

I think the advocates for Roberts should take exerpts of the NARAL ad and incorporate them into a counter advertisement. Making NARAL and their ilk the issue would be a devastating counter.

Roberts lied under questioning about his involvement with corporate lobbyists and conservative groups; for this reason alone he should be dismissed as a nominee, not to mention his radical views. HE LIED.

Not to mention that, last year, Republican fascists quietly ushered in legislation that removed the requirement for Supreme Court nominations to reveal their income tax returns for 4 years previous to their nomination. Why would they want to do that? Maybe its because they don't want it known that Roberts has taken money from some questionable sources that could possible compromise his integrity were he to take the most crucial judicial position in America? Why does the Bush administration need to hide and lie so much to the American people?

Why does the Bush administration need to hide and lie so much . . . ?

Because George W. Bush is really a giant blancmange from the planet Skyron in the Galaxy of Andromeda, on a secret mission to turn the entire world population into Scotsmen because . . . he's out to win Wimbeldon!

The details are all here in a secret report. Quick, go cross-post it to Daily Kos and the DU forums. You'll be a hero.

Classic fascist tactic--don't make judges' tax returns generally available. Next comes the Reichstag fire...

Why does the Bush administration need to hide and lie so much to the American people?

Coming from a person who won't sign a name to his opinions...

Hilarious.

Except that 60% of the country shares his radical views.

Well, if you really want to know, My name is Daniel Richards, im from upstate New York, and im a conservative who hates both Democrats and Republicans. I like long walks on the beach, I'm a Leo, and I pray for the day when people realize that we should have been listening to all those voices of criticism that people like OJ demonize.
OJ, your statistics are always bs, i don't even know why you bother with them.
I wonder why none of you responded to my comment about Roberts lying? I guess its not a big deal to you.
Well, I guess undemocratic is a better term for not revealing tax returns; OJ you really don't care, or think that there was a motive behind changing the requirement?

Daniel:

No. But I think that in a democracy everyone's tax returns should be public, not just public servants'.

So don't you think it conspicuous that they would change the rules a year before there are expected to be at least two openings on the Supreme Court? Don't you think it important that the most important judges in the world be uncompromised?
It goes in step with a lot of the ways that the current administration has changed the rules when it knows it can't, but has to win.
Mike Morley: I don't care about Bush; he is an idiot and everyone knows that, and it has worked out quite well for him, because it has helped to prevent a certain type of speculation in Americans that he and his people are shifty and sneaky manipulators that are up to no good (kind of like how people called Clinton "Slick Willy"). Bush is just a stuttering mouth on camera, as various other in his administration. The real decisions are made by evil geniuses like Rove and Cheney and their corporate hirelings who find the best way to fit their agenda in with those of the most powerful corporation in the world, with whom they have a vested interest.

Anonymous:

No, I don't think giving them some of the same privacy the rest of us enjoy compromises them and I do think them perfectly capable of determining what cases they should recuse themselves from. Whatever else we might think of them, the Justices do take their jobs seriously.

I revently discovered that an ex-girlfriend of mine, one with whom I was madly in love and who broke my heart, now works for NARAL as a fundraiser. I couldn't have heard better news.

Whether or not they take their job seriously, which you have no way of knowing either way, has no bearing on whether or not they are making their decisions in a way that is biased towards those who have or still do support them financially or otherwise, which is why their tax returns is important.
Nominees have always had to reveal their tax returns, so i will ask again; why do you think that Bush changed the legislation without mentioning it to the public?

Ummmm . . . because maybe they thought the old rule was a bad idea?

Hint: It's not always, or even usually, a conspiracy when someone does something . . . even when the actor is an evil member of the Bush/Rove/Halliburton/Mossad neocon cabal that's out to destroy the world--oops, I mean someone on the other side of the political divide from you.

'(Bush) is an idiot and everyone knows that..'
'I'm a Leo..'
'I like long walks on the beach..'

slow down! I'm having a hard time digesting all this vital new information!

Why is the rule a bad idea?
I easy to shoot someone down by exposing someone as a conspiracy theorists (almost as easy as calling someone a "flip-flopper") especially when their theories are disproved after the fact; like the connection between Saddam and 9/11, or the development of a nuclear program in Iraq, or the purchase of WMD's, or a variety of other debunked reasons that we were led into this messy war on imaginary enemies.
Give me one reason why the rule needed to be changed, besides, "well, maybe they just didn't like the rule." And then give me a reason why it wasn't noted widely in the public discourse until this nomination has been making news recently.
Although i used the word "evil" in my post, i must confess that i don't really believe in the word, i was simply using to make an impression on the Christian mythologists here who buy very heavily into the sort of dialectic images that it summons.

Around here we stick to the important conspiracies, like this whole Eric Roberts/Julia Roberts/Margaret Thatcher mystery.

So far I can't figure it out. Is "Dan", "Anonymous", whoever, actually serious, or a very clever parody?

I especially like this line:

Although i used the word "evil" in my post, i must confess that i don't really believe in the word, i was simply using to make an impression on the Christian mythologists here who buy very heavily into the sort of dialectic images that it summons.

This guy's steadily becoming more entertaining than lonbud.

Ah. He's using words to make the desired impression on the slow children. When the impression fails to sink in, he'll probably try smaller words, then more words, then he'll repeat himself, perhaps he'll use exclamation points! or ALL CAPITALS. From there it's a short walk to !@#$%^ profanity and when that starts getting him deleted he'll fire off an hysterical e-mail or two and that will be the last of him. I think I've just proved that Danonymous is Bart.

Twn:

The Left stopped believing in evil long ago:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1129

I'm just trying to provoke you guys into any kind of arguement.
Most of the responses to my posts ignore my main points and respond that which is peripheral or inconsequential.
In my reference to Christian mythologists, i was being serious. Yet, I think that those who take seriously the myths of tribe of Jews from thousands of years ago to be humor in and of itself.

Dan;

Because it gets harder and harder to convince people to serve in government precisely becauise of idiotic conspiracy theories like yours. Returning them some measure of privacy is meant to help recruiting.

So again: Why is it a bad idea to force those who take public office, especially one as important as a Supreme Court Justice, to divulge their financial information? If he's hasn't cheated on his taxes, or taken money from questionable sources, then it shouldn't be a problem. Should it?

Are you kidding me OJ? Please tell me before i go off another rant.

Anonymous:

No. Why should he have less right to privacy than you? Make them all generally available on one website if we think disclosure so important a value.

Just like political contributions should be available immediately - no restrictions, but no hiding, either. Then everyone will know about all the conspiracies and conflicts of interest and such.

I'm just trying to provoke you guys into any kind of arguement.
Most of the responses to my posts ignore my main points and respond that which is peripheral or inconsequential.

That's because you don't HAVE any "main points".

What you think of as definitive and killer we see as ignorant and deluded.

You are slightly amusing, but nobody debates the finer points of pratfalls with the clown.

How could any Republican nomination be approved without tax returns? They're all crooks!Evil, greedy, sexist, racist crooks! Earl Warren was a saint! Pure and disinterested. Where are his returns? They must be part of the public record from ca. 1962. What Japanese internment? Before income tax returns could be scrutinized the country was run by crooked, racist, capitalist PIGS!!!

I still think it's giant blancmanges from the Andromeda galaxy. (If we could see their tax returns, it would reveal them to be aliens.)

what do you mean Anonymous Dan has no main points?

how about:
'..I easy to shoot someone down by exposing someone as a conspiracy theorists (almost as easy as calling someone a "flip-flopper") especially when their theories are disproved after the fact; like the connection between Saddam and 9/11, or the development of a nuclear program in Iraq, or the purchase of WMD's, or a variety of other debunked reasons that we were led into this messy war on imaginary enemies.'

(read it carefully)

what could be clearer? these are the points of almost every moonbat around.

mmmmmmmmmmmm... blancmanges

I had no idea what Dan was talking about with the tax return nondisclosure, so I did a little Googling. He's apparently referring to this Washington Post piece White House To Withhold Nominee's Tax Returns, from July 27, which is the only article I could find on this controversy:

The Bush administration will not give Senate investigators access to the federal tax returns of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., White House and congressional officials said yesterday, a break with precedent that could exacerbate a growing conflict over document disclosure in the confirmation process.

Although nominees to the high court in recent decades were required to provide their three most recent annual tax forms, the administration will neither collect such documents from Roberts nor share them with the Senate Judiciary Committee, the officials said. Instead, the Internal Revenue Service will produce a one-page summary. . . .

The change in policy on tax returns could fuel the debate. The Bush administration changed the policy in 2001, no longer requiring judicial nominees at any level to provide tax returns. . . . The White House did not announce the policy change, and some senior Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee said yesterday that they were unaware of it.

Which, by the way, means that every statement Dan makes here is wrong:

Not to mention In other words, mentioning

that, last year, Actually, 2001

Republican fascists Which one is it, Republicans or fascists?

quietly ushered in legislation Changed the information they require from applicants

that removed the requirement for Supreme Court nominations Prospective federal judges

to reveal Forward to the White House

their income tax returns for 4 3

years previous to their nomination. Application.

Now, what information that could possibly make a difference could be found only on someone's income tax return?

I'm disappointed he (Dan/Anon) didn't ask for a DNA sample. Roberts could have just spit in a cup and handed it to the White House press corps the night he was nominated.

The White House Press Corp (2nd Btn. 1st Div., motto: "Slander from Above") would prefer that he come out with a proctoscope already set up and ready for use.