Nevada's Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, announced Tuesday that he will vote "no" on John Roberts's nomination as chief justice of the Supreme Court. "I'm not too sure," Reid said of Roberts, "if his heart is as big as his head." Doesn't that speak volumes in a sentence? Emotion over logic, feeling over thinking, heart over mind.

Incomprehension over comprehension. Not that feelings can never comprehend, but to take feelings over understanding is exactly to favor lack of comprehension--incohate feeling--over the cohate feeling that we call comprhension, or mind, as opposed to heart. Put it this way. What is Reid implying about how he considers "mind"? He considers it to be devoid of heart. That is, he does not comprehend mind at all. He thinks that mind does not comprehend heart!

Now one can as well say from the other side (the feminine side?) that heart also comprehends mind. But Reid clearly does not think so. For if he understood that, he would understand that mind comprehends heart as well, and would not make his idiotic statement. In other words, Reid is the idiot left, the idiot feminist, the idiot Democrat. Appropriate that he should be their leader. So many of them are idiots.

What I love best is the sheer hypocrisy put on public display by everyone on the Left regarding the Roberts nomination.

The NYTs slams Roberts for failing to answer the incredibly insightful questions of the Democrats, yet lauded Ruth Ginsburg for refusing the same type of litmus-test interrogation by Republicans during her confirmation.

Harry Reid states Roberts has been more than capable in his current judgeship, but somehow is unacceptable on the SCOTUS because some writings on affirmative action back in the 80's might presage a move by Roberts to bring back Jim Crow.

What incredibly senseless tripe! They can't admit their opposition would exist to any candidate Bush would name, so they appear as fools with their lame attempts to justify their knee-jerk reactions.

In a duel of brains and wits, each Democratic Senator who came at Roberts did so unarmed and with a huge disadvantage.

There's Roberts, who graduated with honors from Harvard in three years, being questioned by Fat Ted K. who got thrown out of Harvard for cheating.

Comical.

Note that Reid is probably also insulting Roberts intentionally as being egotistical with his "big head" crack. I wouldn't necessarily read that quote as trying to compliment Roberts intelligence while criticizing his presumed lack of compassion.

I am not at all concvinced that Roberts will be a judge I respect so in the end I may chalk up this opposition to the standard inability of the left to distinguish friend from foe. Just look at their loathing for the reincarnation of LBJ in GWB.

I may have missed the point here. I was reminded of Barbra Bush's thoughts concerning the evacuees in the Arena at N.O. What was it she said? I want to compare the way people think when the chips are down. Was Pascal wrong? "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."

Yes, the heart has its reasons, but that is best confined to matters of the heart and not to matters of law, such as testing legislation against the Constitution.

It's official that that stellar senatorial contingent from Mass. of Fat Ted K. and John "reporting for duty" Kerry will vote against Roberts as they think him unqualified for the job.

Ay Carumba! Somebody air lift me out of here.

On display during the Robert's hearings was how liberals favor a results-oriented jurisprudence. The consitution should be interpreted in such a way to reach the desired result--to expand the group rights liberals are always touting. So a principled interpretation of the consitution in light of its text, original intention, and historical interpretation is subordinated to worker's rights, minority rights, infanticide rights, etc. Liberal judges start with this premise, and craft high minded theories about a "living" constitution to justify the result. This is to be contrasted with the conservative philosophy of principled interpretation without regard for the result (e.g overturning Roe may or may not lead to the banning of abortion, but it is still the right thing to do). The difference is between the rule of law (conservatives) and the rule of man (liberals). And then the liberals on the judiciary commitee have the temerity to warn of an "ideologue" on the Court. Their whole method of constitutional interpretation is shaped by their own ideology.

"What I love best is the sheer hypocrisy put on public display by everyone on the Left regarding the Roberts nomination.'

What else do they have to offer?