WP: Santorum: Mrs. Roberts' Work Not Relevant

[UpInArms]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072500306.html

WASHINGTON -- The fact that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' wife does free legal work for an anti-abortion group should not be relevant to his confirmation hearing, a Senate Republican leader said Monday.

Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Jane Roberts' work for Feminists for Life should have no influence on her husband's decisions as a justice. Santorum is one of the Senate's most outspoken abortion opponents.

"My wife has opinions on things that may or may conform with mine and I think most couples are in that situation," Santorum said on NBC's "Today" show. "I don't think your wife's activities should have any impact on what a judge is going to do. I certainly would think that he would tell you they don't, nor should they. It's the facts of a case and the law of a case."

...more...

Ummm...yeah...right :eyes:

[YDogg]

1. Is that a pubic hair ...

... in Santorum's ass?

[Tommymac]

16. Nah, just some leftover

santorum.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

2. Just STFU and go away, Ricky. You have zero credibility.

ZERO.

[Vickers]

3. Yeah, like they didn't care what Hillary's views were while First Lady

:eyes::sarcasm::eyes::sarcasm::eyes::sarcasm::eyes::sarcasm::eyes::sarcasm::eyes:

[acmejack]

4. Santorum is not relevant!

nt

[MrBenchley]

5. Not surprising little Ricky says that...

Although he's been quick to rail about "trial lawyers," "malpractice lawsuits driving up health care costs," and "nuisance lawsuits," Mrs. Santorum sued a chiropractor not so long ago for half a million clams. He even testified for her!

And although Dogsex Boy has fought for years to cap everybody else's lawsuit damages at $250,000, he didn't say boo when his wife collected $350,000 in her suit.

http://www.fromtheroots.org/story/2005/6/9/134811/0031

[SpiralHawk]

10. Santo's wife founded "Clipping Chiros for Clams" didn't she?

Word on the grapevine says the org is dedicated to amassing great weath via the use of trial lawyers to clip megabucks from Chiropractors (especially those from liberal states with extraordinary numbers of pervo priests and ministers).

[MrBenchley]

15. There's another GOP wife

who had an even more frivolous big bucks lawsuit while her husband was trying to keep everybody else from suing...but I can't remember the details. Something about a dry cleaner?

[alkaline9]

6. I think what he meant to say was...

"...when you're a republican, and your wife has strong conservative anti-abortion views, it will in no way affect your judicial conduct... However when you're a dirty democrat who's wife works for the CIA as an undercover agent, you are undoubtedly corrupt in your decision making."

Well, which is it? If KKKarl and team can make Wilson's wife "fair game" ... then can't we make Roberts' wife fair game too? Or is that breaking the republican rules? ASS HOLE!

[Rose Siding]

7. He's wants to draw attention to this

It's a message to their base.

[Lerkfish]

9. agreed. I thought the same thing.

[nickinSTL]

8. hypocrite

If she worked for Planned Parenthood, you can be damn sure he'd find it relevant.

[Ian David]

11. Don't Forget. Jon Stewart is Spreading Santorum on The Daily Show Tonight

My guess is his Director of Communications, "Gay Bobby," is deliberately trying to sabotage Santorum by telling him it's a good idea to go on The Daily Show.

See related threads:

More proof Santorum is crazy: He'll be on The Daily Show on Monday
Topic started by IanDB1 on Jul-22-05 11:20 AM (4 replies)
Last modified by hopein08 on Jul-22-05 03:54 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=175&topic_id=6426


Santorum calls gay staffer a 'trusted employee'
Topic started by kweerwolf on Jul-19-05 10:33 AM (7 replies)
Last modified by Siyahamba on Jul-22-05 01:41 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=13977

[powergirl]

12. NOT RELEVANT - BECAUSE CHICKS SHOULDN'T WORK ANYWAY?

In Santorum's own twisted world, he probably made that statement in earnest. You know, women need to stay home, have babies, keep their mouths shut, obey the husbands, etc. Therefore, Mrs. Robert's work "not relevant" takes on a whole new meaning with this psycho.:crazy:

[BOSSHOG]

13. Was Mrs. Plame's work relevant ricky?

Relevant to her husband's mission? No. But that didn't stop you and your kind huh ricky. Looking forward to sending part of my military pension from Mississippi to Bob Casey's campaign.

[merwin]

14. WOW, something I actually agree with him on!

The views of your spouse does not necessarily determine your views. It's irrelevant what she believes. It's completely relevant what HE believes, however.

Here's a good example... Laura Bush is pro-choice.

[xxqqqzme]

17. so was/is

battle-ax babs. I recall that when she expressed that opinion, the media were all over it. As was poppy until the VRWC told him what his opinions really were, and who would fund him.

[stanwyck]

19. How do we know Laura Bush

is pro-choice? I know that view has been thrown around here at DU. But how, exactly, has Laura Bush expoused her pro-choice views? What has she done to ensure women retain their rights?
My view is that Laura's supposed "pro-choice" is more mindless, empty rhetoric that the Bushies throw around to show their supposed "big tent" perspective. And it's nonsense. It's a divide and conquer. Bush is anti-abortion. His wife (who "wanted" a woman as the Supreme Court nominee---an unnamed woman and no details as to why a woman)is "pro-choice". Everybody's happy.
But is Laura really fighting for a woman's right to choose? Given that she has such a forum being the First Lady? No. Of course not. She'll just shrug prettily and say "Oh, well" if Roe v. Wade is overturned. "I tried."
Not really.
And that's the beauty of their strategy.

[merwin]

20. Here's the Washington Post article regarding it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901164_pf.html

[stanwyck]

23. Thanks for the link

and it may be that I'm just too jaded and cynical, but the article seems to support my idea of both Barbara and Laura very timidly (and tepidly) saying they're pro-choice just to keep the moderates from bolting the party. It seems calculated. And not heartfelt.

[merwin]

26. Heh, I don't think timid is a common description of battleax Barbara.

[stanwyck]

30. OK. OK.

you've got me there!

[CAcyclist]

22. Very Good Point

The fact is the wife has always been scrutinized by the Republicans if they thought it woud do them any good and they don't stick to details like what she does.

I think what she does IS relevant. This is not a personal attack on her. It's a concern that if she does this, then maybe he feels the same way or has come around to her point of view.

[Canuckistanian]

27. Wow. Good Call!

Just look at Mary Matalin/James Carville. Same political views? I think not.

[msongs]

18. gee, Mrs. CLINTON's work used to have relevance to repubs nt

[fob]

21. I think I believe him on this part...

"My wife has opinions on things that may or may conform with mine...

:evilgrin:

[MGKrebs]

25. LOL!!

[insane_cratic_gal]

24. Santorum: Mrs. Roberts, that bitch should sit down

and shut up. Get back in the kitchen while she's at it"

Right Ricky! Just like your wife does.

I can't wait for 2006 when his ass is thrown out onto the street.

[Brooklyn Michael]

28. You're right, Rick.....

...a candidate or Supreme Court nominee's spouse is irrelevant to that person's qualifications for the office they're seeking, or holding already.....

Unless it's Theresa Heinz-Kerry and her inheritance, her comments on world issues, her wardrobe, her family's business....

Or, naturally, when it was Hillary Clinton, and her cousin's brush with the law, or her "liberal" education, or her views on how to fix healthcare, or her relationship with Bill, or her sexuality, or....


Hey, wait....y'know what, Rick? Shut the fuck up you hypocritical piece of shit!

:argh:

[zara]

29. Wasn't it the GOP that said Florida Judges couldn't put aside ...

their personal biases to decide the election fairly?
Yet another case of GOP Hypocrisy. Doesn't fit this time? Jettison that argument!
It's all a power zero sum game where a win for our team is all that matters.