ProLifeBlog's Naaman gets a hat tip in this LifeSite article:
...Roberts today told senators that any Supreme Court opinions he has on euthanasia wont be based on my personal views, adding that They will be based on my understanding of the law
More at Marlowe's Shade
Um, good to know that LifeSite is reading this blog. On the other hand, my post did not address euthanasia at all, so I'm unsure as to why they included that in the article.
I must say, it's a little bit disconcerting to see myself quoted in print.
The article was on the testimony as a whole and I pulled out the quote on euthanasia.
I just thought it was cool that they mentioned your analysis favorably, and posted the blurb in the hopes you would see it.
Why disconcerted? It was a great post and you deserved the recognition!
Vagueness involves fuzzy boundaries, such as saying that there's no clear line between non-personhood and personhood in the development of a fetus. There's nothing like that in his statement. He's very precise in what he says. He doesn't give all the information you'd like (though to do so would be an ethics violation anyway), but that doesn't amount to vagueness.
Thanks for stopping by Jeremy, I'm flattered!
Fair enough on the lazy use of the word "vague".
I was scanning your blog to see what your view is on Roberts as nominee that pro-life folks will be happy with. Based on this post:
http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/09/john_roberts_he.html#more
you seem pretty comfortable with him. I hope you and Naaman are right that he is our own stealth nominee, and the liberals aren't going to sting us again.