Posted on 07/23/2005 5:07:01 PM PDT by nwrep
The most thoroughly researched and informative piece on the philosophical and political leanings of Judge Roberts appeared in the Washington Post on Friday. It was largely ignored in the main stream media, and surprisingly, on most blogs.
Weeding through dozens of memos on display at the Reagan library, written by John G. Roberts Jr., then a junior lawyer in the White House counsel's office in the early years of the Reagan administration, the reporters discovered the profile of a judicially restrained constitutionalist, and a sharply partisan young Republican.
Some examples of his approach and advice given to the administration officials follow:
1. Opposed Asst. Attorney General Theodore Olson on busing, concluding in a sharply worded rebuttal that " the evidence supports this -- that busing promotes segregation rather than remedying it, by precipitating white flight." Thus, he positioned himself to the right of Olson on school busing, and in support of the anti-busing bill, which was sponsored by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.).
2. When Rep. Elliott Levitas (D-Ga.) wanted to meet with President Reagan to determine "the manner of power sharing and accountability within the federal government" in response to a Supreme Court ruling on the matter, Roberts issued a sarcastic and contemptous statement rebuffing this idea, stating "... there already has, of course, been a 'Conference' on Power Sharing. It took place in Philadelphia's Constitution Hall in 1787, and someone should tell Levitas about it and the 'report' it issued."
3. In a memo to the White House, blasted Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur Goldberg, an activist liberal appointed by President Kennedy, when Justice Goldberg expressed concerns that the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada was unconstitutional. Roberts noted that the President has "inherent authority in the international area to defend American lives and interests," an authority that "has been recognized since at least the time President Jefferson sent the marines to the shores of Tripoli."
4. When a former EPA official turned against the Reagan administration over a Superfund related matter, Roberts drew up a strategy memo which led to the Justice Department stopping her representation -- saying it was involved in investigating EPA corruption -- and she was forced to resign in the spring of 1983.
When you combine the above with the following known positions of Judge Roberts, the picture becomes even clearer:
1. Sided with the Bush administration over military tribunals for Gitmo detainees.
2. Sided with law enforcement over car searches without warrants.
3. Expressed disdain and contempt of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to Interstate commerce.
4. Advised Jeb Bush during the Bush v Gore recount fight in Florida in 2000.
The only remaining unknown is his tenure as a Deputy Solicitor General in the Bush White House from 1989 to 1993. President Bush has access to the memos that Judge Roberts has written from that era. I am sure they affirm and bolster any conclusion one can draw from the examples above. The rest of the media, Ann Coulter included, does not have access to those records, although the Democrats are now demanding that they be released.
Those fearful of another Souter on our hands should consider the following: Souter was a largely unknown Judge on the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He was single, reclusive, and was praised by a Gay rights activist after his nomination. During his confirmation, Souter said he would "to try to give the Constitution a good life in the time that it will be entrusted to me." He further went on to offer the following view on judicial activism. Asked about "unaccountable judges" who "create" constitutional rights, Souter said it was "essential" to distinguish between inventing rights and recognizing those "which are implicit in the text of the Constitution itself and which it is the . . . responsiblity of the judicary to find."
Does Souter sound like a conservative? Now contrast that with Roberts.
In conclusion, the brilliance of the Bush strategery, failed to have been grasped by the Ann Coulters, is that in John Roberts, we have a nominee who is not only a judicial conservative, and would rule as such, but that on occasions when all other things are equal, he will take the most politically and socially conservative position.
PING
Good post, and unlike some on this topic, based on facts. How novel!
Juries Out. Hope Bush didnt butcher this pick.
Ann Coulter will regret her column eventually.
PING
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
"Ann Coulter will regret her column eventually."
If so, I'm sure she will regret it happily - if and when Judge Roberts is confirmed and proves her wrong.
I think Ann was doing some spin, opposing Robert's nomination so that the libs will say "see, if hardcore extremist Coulter hates him, then he can't be that bad."
It will never be that easy, though. The Rats will want to extract every ounce of airtime and political flesh before eventually folding.
Thanks for providing some of Roberts' actual words. His use of sarcasm and his dismissive tone shows in how much disdain he holds liberal views. He's not another Souter. Liberals like Souter just DON'T TALK LIKE THIS.
Also, the way he dealt with the EPA official who "turned against" the Reagan administration? This shows that he's not just a reactive "yes-man" Republican, but he actually came up with a strategy and dealt with the matter.
"Maybe so. It's certainly appears as if Roberts will sail through, with the Democrats afraid to filibuster, and the GOP feeling smug."
Wait until Rehnquist is out (within 6 months). Bush will nominate the woman (Brown?). The dems are bitching that he should have nominated a woman. In addition, to replace a true conservative (in keeping with replacing kind for kind), the nomination of a true outspoken conservative will be almost impossible to stop.
Their rules, doncha know.
Ping.
They'll throw a temper tantrum for everything it's worth.
The funny thing is that they don't realize it's hurting them.
I call it her SS & SS strategy.. That is Sharp Statements and Short Skirts.
Glass half full I'd say:
2. Sided with law enforcement over car searches without warrants.
3. Expressed disdain and contempt of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to Interstate commerce.
Good on the commerce clause thing, and I hope he finds a case without marijuana as the subject matter. Bad on the search thing. If he is an originalist, he would consider what a police state we have become since the Founders' day.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah. That would be sweet. God grant us more Republicans that play to win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.