Thursday, April 19, 2007

Donohue gives blogstress big prize

Bill Donohue, perhaps your blogstress's favorite bigot, has a piece at Human Events Online in which he rehashes his charge of anti-Catholicism against your écrivaine for having dared to note, in 2005, that George W. Bush's nomination of the very Catholic John Roberts to the top spot on the high court was a smooth move. Her point was that Roberts' religion would give the right cover when the liberals on the Judiciary Committee, before which he would appear for his confirmation hearing, pushed him for his views on abortion. "Anti-Catholic!" they would cry, of anyone who dared to challenge Roberts views on Roe v. Wade.

Grouping your cyberscribe among the likes of the besotted Christopher Hitchens, the probing Nina Totenberg and the saintly E.J. Dionne, he then said that none of them could surpass your blogstress in one critical area:

When John Roberts was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, his Catholicism became an issue with pundits like NPR’s Nina Totenberg, ABC’s Barbara Walters, CNN's Tony Harris, Slate’s Christopher Hitchens, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, Harper’s John MacArthur, former governor Mario Cuomo, et al. No one beat The American Prospect's Adele Stan: She wrote that Bush was “playing the Catholic card” in nominating Roberts, and that "Rome must be smiling."
Another prize to add to the résumé.

Sphere: Related Content

Whatever happened to states' rights?

There's a great discussion happenning right now on TAPPED about yesterday's Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on the dialtion & extraction abortion procedure passed last year by Congress.

Garance Franke-Ruta, Scott Lemeiux and other of my sibling bloggers have pulled the cloth off of a favorite argument of the right: that states should have nearly sovereign rights to govern abortion. Here are a couple of swell posts, one by Garance and the other by Scott.

Sphere: Related Content