Perhaps he is pragmatic.

Perhaps he sees through the theatrics of the presidential and congressional puppetry.

Perhaps he is concerned about that which has actually happened and continues to happen.

Instead of that which is said via stage-theatrics, and broadcast via the formerly “publc” media.

Perhaps he perceives that the current world bankruptcy was caused by the implementation of the following :
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
—William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981) as recorded by the great American investigator/historian, Mrs. Mae Brussell.

The thing about Conason’s article is that, switching the terms Democrat/Repuyblican, Conservative/progressive, etc, would yield the same result in a conservative column. Both sides think the other side’s nominee will destroy the country. It’s all theatre.

And his last paragraph gives the game away. He spends the whole article worrying that conservatives will turn the country into a whites only theocracy, then finishes by saying that even Republicans, since Lincoln, even Reagan!, and Nixon!!, have upheld “those principles encompass[ing] religious freedom for everyone regardless of sect or creed; the capacity of elected representatives to legislate for the common good; and the protection of individual liberty within a framework of enforceable laws.” What is he really worried about?

ardee:
I think the term “activist judge” as used by conservatives is code for one who is overly creative in finding hitherto undiscovered “rights” in the Constitution and turning them, via his/her opinion, into the law of the land. One’s opinions about abortion or segregation/busing, for instance, are irrelevant to the fact that these highly charged issues have been decided from the bench, by “activist” judges and not from the legislature, where they “constitutionally” should be decided.

The fact that Roberts decides conservatively says nothing about whether or not he is reinventing or discovering new constitutional “rights.” It only says that he decides conservatively. You can certainly disagree with his decisions, but it doesn’t follow that he is “activist.”

Perhaps we did not “see” the real agenda until after the “watch” of
GHWBushSr, which began with the attempted assassination of
movie star Ronald Reagan. 

Revelations in the Washington Post provide some insight.  The
documentation of Viet Nam hero and former senator, atty. John
DeCamp, in his book, “The Franklin Cover Up” reveals the internal,
nitty-gritty-satanism that empowers the “real agenda.”

The real agenda was quite visible at the end of the second year of
the “watch” of GHWBushJr, or “junior Bush,”
who simply followed orders of his senior, and the string-pullers of
his senior.

The real agenda accelerated with the beginning of the 2nd “watch”
of junior Bush.

The real agenda was kicked into “Grandma gear” by Mr. Obama (or
whatever his names), who is an outstanding stage-character.  His
twenty-years servitude to CIA string-pullers prepared him well for
stage performances.  Just take a look at the millions who are
stupefied by his fraudulent stage-performances. For example, more
recently, Mrs. Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. 

One month ago, March, the German minister of defense was
investigating why the German army Colonel called in the USAF to
destroy a gasoline tanker, which action killed more than one
hundred local afghani civilians.  This month, he is propagating the
idea that Germany must strengthen its soldiers in Afghanistan so
they can kill more locals more easily.  SOMETHING does not jive.

The real agenda is carefully explained by “pastor” Lesley Williams
in his videos.  View them yourself, and draw your own conclusions,
rather than accept opinions of “experts,” each of whom slips in
ones own, personal spin:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2219026291450576553#

I ask you:

Would you buy a used car from Justice Thomas?
How about Justices Scalia, Roberts or Alito?

The Supreme court has become a vehicle to enable their Republican agenda and
ideology nationwide.
The real kicker is the ruling which allows corporations to fund candidates.
Gee, wonder which candidates they would fund?

...the traditional American view of the Constitution—the view of the founding fathers of this country—George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams…

Upheld by Republicans as well, (am I reading this in Truthdig?) from Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan (that cant be in Truthdig, I need to get my eyes examined) those principles encompass religious freedom for everyone regardless of sect or creed; the capacity of elected representatives to legislate for the common good; and the protection of individual liberty within a framework of enforceable laws.

I agree with all that, but isnt saying something nice about Reagan and especially Nixon verboten here on Truthdig?

“Choosing a Supreme Court justice has become a deplorably dishonest process . . . “

Agreed.
But, it isnt a new process.
Nor, is the process limited to the sneaking onto the allegedly “Supreme Court” the patsy of the political fraternity that exercises the decisive influence.

Which court no longer is “Supreme,” since imposters issue presidential decrees that insult the founding document of the Republic of the USofA.

Which administrative decrees ignore the authority of the “U.S. Supreme Court,” anyway ?

Congratulations to the NAZI & israeli dictator types. Now that you manipulate the USofA, and have essentially ruined it, where do you plan to hide out?

If the debate of the constitution takes place only or mostly on major TV networks and conducted-discussed by the usual ‘gurus’, this wld not produce any new changes.

And any debate in any other privately-owned medium of information, wld be entertaining, but not honestly conducted. Of course, i extrapolate, but from well-known facts!

It wld probably exclude vast number of non-selfserving people.
Collumnists, ‘gurus’, pols, priests, ‘educators’ being mostly selfserving wld continue to demand constitution stays the same.

In any case, a referendum on changes in constitution or interpretation of constitution; which might be binding, wld not be held. Or, yes!? Not likely, huh?

Debating constitution wld be good artifice. It may go on for yrs just like killing of ‘aliens’. Mind u, 98% of americans do not give a hoot ab death of innocent people; money being by far graver issue than their crimes against the innocents. tnx

The nominating process for any Obama appointee, much less a Supreme Court Justice, is a strong indication of exactly how disfunctional our government has become. There is no real debate, only campaigning, there are no real determinations of a nominees qualifications, only political positioning for use in later elections.

We hear, ad nauseum, from republican parrots, that democrats appoint or seek to appoint, “activist judges”. Is there a more activist judge on the Supreme Court than Roberts? His every decision supports, 100% of the time, big against small, corporate against individual, wealth against poverty. Let us not even mention Scalia, or the almost embarrassingly unfit Thomas, republican nominees all. Thus the term activist judge becomes a political slant only, my guy is ok yours sucks.

One might suspect that the Republican Party swing to the far right would make for an easy rebuttal from Democrats. The silence is simply deafening…..