A lot a' yada yada from the Left

When Michael Barone talks about how, try as the liberal media does, Bush Bashing is fizzling he must have been talking about pieces such as this one from the New Yorker.

Here's a snippet from the New Yorker piece that typifies the liberal talking points regarding conservative judges on the Supreme Court:

"If Roberts turns out to be as conservative as Bush’s rightmost supporters hope, then affirmative action, secularism, patients’ rights, and all manner of federal regulation from campaign-finance controls to environmental protection will be in serious trouble."

Sounds like Conservative judges really have it in for individual rights, huh? But if we take a closer look at what the terms above really mean, we actually find just the opposite.

1) "affirmative action" = racism -- (hence racism will be in serious trouble with Roberts on the bench)

2) "secularism" = assault on freedom of religion -- (hence Roberts will protect free exercise of religion)

3) "patient's rights" = state's right to kill you -- (hence Roberts will protect patient's from being executed by the state)

4) "campaign finance controls" = state control over who may run for office -- (hence Roberts will allow citizens more freedom to determine who their elected representatives are)

5) "environmental protection" = state control of citizen's lands -- (hence Roberts will protect citizens from state commandeering of their property)

Liberal speak, she's tricky no?