Thursday, August 11, 2005
Factcheck: anti-Roberts ad is "false" and "misleading"
A couple of days back we pointed you to Power Line's exposure of the despicably slanderous falsehoods contained in an attack ad launched against Judge Roberts by a pro-abortion group. Factcheck.org is in agreement, pronouncing the ad both "false" and "misleading":
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.
Anybody heard all those lefty voices denouncing this pile of garbage?
Anybody heard that CNN has returned the $150,000 or whatever they've already been paid, and declined to run the ad?
Yeah, me neither.
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too. Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.
Anybody heard all those lefty voices denouncing this pile of garbage?
Anybody heard that CNN has returned the $150,000 or whatever they've already been paid, and declined to run the ad?
Yeah, me neither.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]