They want to make his views on privacy PUBLIC. How sickeningly IRONIC. Especially when added to the fact that the NYTIMES is prying into the adoption of his two children.
The NYTIMES - like the rest of the "Hypoquiddick" Left* - has no shame.
[*Read hypocritic, but as if (a) Elmer J. Fudd said it, and (b) as if he meant to tie it into the shamelessness of Teddy Jo Kopechne and BJ Clinton and Bobby "KKK" Byrd. As in: "The Left, they're nothing but a bunch of hypoquiddickal socialists!"]
A HEARTY WELCOME TO THE ANCHORESS READERS!
1 comment:
Public Policy views regarding Privacy should certainly remain Private. I mean, why else would you call it views on "privacy".
If you made them Public, they wouldn't be Private anymore, now would they?
The activist Judges have just been reading too much into the Constitution anyway. There is no "Right to Privacy" even mentioned there!
If they would just stick to a strict "constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution, they wouldn't have this kind of issue in the first place.
Judge Roberts views on Privacy should remain Private.
Post a Comment