I say props to NARAL for pointing out the connection between Roberts’s argument on behalf of the radicals and the actions of those radicals. I think it’s fair game. Conservative attack ads connect liberals to bad guys all the time, with far less convincing ties. Exhibit A: Remember Riechert’s ads against Dave Ross, linking Ross to al Qaeda?

Big deal if NARAL is blurring the distinction between Roberts’s position that the administration was not trying to defend the demonstrators’ conduct but rather trying to “defend the proper interpretation” of the statute. Roberts’s took the terrorists’ side in the matter, and it’s fair game to run footage of the terrorists’ handiwork. Republicans blur those fine-tuned distinctions all the time (Democrats are for socialism, crack addicts, and frivolous lawsuits.) Three cheers to NARAL for returning the favor. Democrats should do this sort of thing more often.

And ya know, I'm not so sure the NARAL ad is off base.
By FactCheck.org's own (unwitting) admission, there's some cause and effect related to Roberts's position.

"The pictures are of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question."

Exactly.

Roberts's position on behalf of the anti-abortion clinic radicals limited law-enforcement tools in dealing with those radicals. That's how you judge the wisdom of legal positionshow they play out. Now (even though SCOTUS decisions from the early '90s do fall into my beat here at the Stranger's Weblog), I don't know enough about the KKK law to understand why the Bush 1 Admn. didn't like the idea of expanding it to include violent anti-abortion protesters. I guess, from reading the NYT piece, it seems like the Bush amdn. didn't think it was fair to characterize anti-abortion terrorism as being solely aimed at women a la the KKK targeting a specific classblacks. If that was Bush 1's argument, it seems pretty shaky. Plus...what's the danger of using that tool to prevent terrorism anyway?