Mitt Romney shows how truly nutty and anti-woman he can be in today's USA Today article:

"There's a lot more to being pro-life beyond appointing conservative justices."

"That, I will do," promised Romney. "I like Roberts and Alito, I like Thomas and Scalia. I like that kind of thinking on the bench, and that's the kind of justice I will appoint."

That makes if official. The Christian religious extremism we have seen under Bush would be replaced by Mormon religious extremism under Romney.

Don't assume Romney is a moderate because he was Massachusetts' Governor. The real Romney is far, far to the right.

The Washington Post showed how desperate it can be to shill for the Bush Administration and the GOP in it’s Editorial, “The Right Vote.”

Despite Roberts the blatant contempt Roberts has demonstrated for the Constitution and women’s rights throughout his career, the Post acted as if he has some sort of inalienable right to a Supreme Court seat. Even worse is the Post’s lack of concern about Roberts’ blatantly unethical behavior.

As long as women, people of color, and queers will face the brunt of Roberts’ contempt for the Constitution, the Post thinks it is somehow out-of-bounds to oppose it. The Editorial ironically claimed that the actions of the three Democrats who cast cowardly and cynical votes for Roberts actions’ “took guts.” Talk about unintentional comedy.

Even worse, the Post  lied about liberals opposing Roberts, saying:

The liberal groups have made clear that they will oppose any nominee from this administration, regardless of qualifications, temperament or testimony.

This is truly bizarre. Throughout his career, Roberts has behaved as a dangerous fanatic, bent on destroying Constitutional Rights. Roberts has refused to recuse himself on a recent case where the defendants were interviewing him for the very Supreme Court appointment in question. Anyone concerned with women’s rights, constitutional rights, and ethics in government would have no choice but to oppose Roberts.

If the Post were honest, they would acknowledge the fact that the Bush regime wants to pack the courts with dangerous, anti-Constitutional extremists. Sadly, corporate interests and ideology have trumped honest discourse at that paper. It is typical of the corporate media, but it is particularly frustrating when there is so much at stake.

Questions about Roberts’ integrity have been downplayed by the corporate media, which is determined to promote a partisan, GOP agenda whenever possible. However, those concerns need to be addressed.

- Roberts lied about his membership in the Federalist Society, a rightist hate-group dedicated to overthrowing the constitution and representative government in the United States. It turns out Roberts was an officer in the DC chapter.

- Roberts has refused to turn over his tax records, unlike previous appointees.

- The Bush regime still refuses to turn over critical documents from when Roberts worked for Ken Starr in the Solicitor General’s office, claiming attorney-client privilege, despite the fact that the American people are the clients of the Solicitor General’s office.

- The fact that Roberts ever worked for someone as dishonest and unprofessional as Starr should raise serious questions about whether Roberts has any concept of legal ethics at all.

- Roberts refused to recuse himself on a recent case involving Alberto Gonzales’ torture memo, immediately after being interviewed by Gonzales and Bush about filling a potential Supreme Court vacancy.

Taken separately, these are disturbing enough. Together, they prove that Roberts is unfit to serve in any capacity on the Supreme Court, much less as Chief Justice.

Will Bush’s Supreme Court nomination of rightist zealot judge John G. Roberts Jr. distract liberals from Rove’s ethical problems? Do liberals have to choose whether to fight Roberts or publicize Rovegate?

I’ve heard and read various versions of these questions the past day or two. This completely underestimates liberals. We can fight the illegitimate regime in more than one area. We can focus on more than one thing at a time.

This gives us an advantage against the dittoheads of the world who can only obsess on one issue during a given time. Here are some links on Roberts:

http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
http://www.prochoice.org/policy/courts/nominations/roberts_facts.html