Why you can ignore NOW
...as if you needed another reason. "[The] Nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice is an Outrage to Women", according to NOW. But none of this is new. Check out what hysterical feminists have said about past justices, even the liberal ones:
1975: According to Nan Aron, then the president of the Women's Legal Defense Fund, John Paul Stevens should be opposed because had shown "blatant insensitivity to discrimination against women."1990: With the nomination of David Souter, Molly Yard, then the president of NOW, declared that confirming Souter would mean "ending freedom for women in this country." NOW howled that his confirmation meant "Women will die."
Damn, that Souter quote is just priceless! And it's exactly why no one takes these caterwauling shrews seriously.
Hat tip: Kate
Comments
And yet, nobody in the MSM will ever point this out.
The best line from the piece was when the spokeswoman (Ellen Greenberg (?)) was asked if her group had ever endorsed ANY GOP nominated judge. "No".
Enough said.
Posted by: mal | September 16, 2005 10:22 AM