WASHINGTON, D.C. ( – A recent national survey commissioned by American Values and the American Family Association (AFA) and released today finds that voters favor a “more conservative” over a “more liberal” Supreme Court by a 50.3% to 30.5% margin. The telephone survey, conducted to reflect voter distributions across the country, asked 800 randomly chosen likely voters a number of questions pertaining to the Supreme Court nomination of judge John Roberts.

When asked who they like better, “a justice who strictly applies the intent of the law without regard to his or her own policy views” or “who corrects policies that he or she believes to be wrong, even if that requires overruling the intent of elected representatives,” respondents favored the justice who strictly applies the intent of the law by 59.6% to 31.4%. Judge Roberts has made it no secret that this is precisely the sort of “judicial restraint” that he favors, having consistently advocated such restraint throughout his career.

In the meantime Democratic forces in the senate are beginning line of attack #3 in their bid to block Bush’s conservative nominee. With seventy thousand pages of documents pertaining to Roberts having been released for scrutiny Democrats have begun clamouring for access to yet further documents that the Bush administration insists cannot be released due to attorney/client confidentiality.

Senator Mitch McConnell has said that Democrats have failed in their first two strategies—that of accusing the White House of insufficient consultation and painting Roberts as being out of the mainstream—and have begun their third strategy. Their next line of attack, according to McConnell is “to endlessly request documents about the nominee in a fishing expedition designed to drag the process out as long as possible.”

With these preliminary tactics in full swing, Democrats are also gearing up to subject Roberts to an anticipated grueling session of senate hearings, and contradicting themselves in the process. CNS News reported on Thursday that Senator Edward Kennedy, during the confirmation process of Justice Marshall in 1967 argued that Supreme Court nominees should “defer any comments” on questions pertaining to their views on controversial topics; Kennedy has since conveniently made public his strong insistence that Roberts “will be expected to answer fully” any number of questions about his views on such issues.

Another Democratic Senator, Barbara Boxer, seems to have chosen not to beat around the bush and to express her desire to dispense with the intended purpose of the judiciary altogether. While expressing her belief that “we have to see the man’s heart, his soul, his mind,” Boxer cited polls that supposedly showed that voters believe that a nominee should be judged on the issues rather than on qualifications. “I’m sworn to uphold the Constitution,” said Boxer, although it was unclear how she united fidelity to the Constitution with her view that the judiciary should adhere to and act under the influence of a particular ideology.



Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.