Posted on 07/19/2005 8:20:10 PM PDT by tellw
WITH THE SUPREME COURT PICK of John Roberts, George W. Bush rose to the occasion.
The occasion was an opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court. Bush seized the opportunity, in two ways: He moved the Court a solid step to the right (to speak vulgarly), and he elevated its quality. It's true that Roberts is a Rehnquist, not a Scalia or a Thomas. He'll be a little more incremental, a little more cautious, than some of us rabid constitutionalists will sometimes like. But he is a conservative pick, and a quality pick--and, to my surprise, a non-PC, non-quota pick.
I had expected Bush to choose a woman. Indeed, I pointed in last week's editorial to several competent and qualified conservative woman. But in preemptively yielding to gender quotas, so to speak, I made a mistake--and earned a well-deserved and well-argued rebuke from Charmaine Yoest at National Review Online, who said I (and others) had "conceded too easily" to the pernicious claims of identity politics. She was right. And the president, weighing a truly important decision for the country's future, agreed with her. By simply going for the best person, by not worrying about walking out to the podium last night accompanied by a white male, Bush did something important and courageous. He showed that he knows that on really significant matters, one has to ignore political correctness and political pandering, and even political convenience. For this lesson, as well as for an intellectually impressive and politically sound choice, Bush deserves a lot of credit. I unreservedly give it to him.
William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.
AMEN! GOD BLESS THIS PRESIDENT!
That is so true. No scandals, no drama, just business. So refreshing after the Clinton/Gore fiasco.
That is, when I am not thinking "Iago."
Pick the best person for the job, regardless of race or gender. What a concept! The next thing you know, the majority of NBA teams will start hiring tall black men to play power forward.
Wouldn't it be ironic if "brilliant" John Roberts' decisions turn out to be pretty much the same as Clarence Thomas's decisions?
I too scrutinize everything that comes out of Kristol's pie-hole, -watching him acquiesce and to ascribe to Conservative notions on FOX.
It's kind of interesting to watch his eyebrows knit us stories of just how brilliant George W was, or, -what a stunning blow the Conservative's dealt to the Left today.
He delivers the news almost apologetically, with a worrisome or apologetic demeanor. He's acts nervous, like a dog that just got busted snatching a steak off the table ;>
I just can't help but think of him as being a bit too eager to sport the words and ideas that will keep him in the loop as a Frequent Fox 'analyst' Talking Head.
He's nothing more than a gossip to me.
I guess it's petty, but what I'm saying here is that his creepy facial expressions give him a distrustful appearance.
I could very well be wrong about that, he may be a truly decent person.
BUT -He Cashed in on trashing Hillary.
It was fun, but it still makes him a loser in the long run and relegates him to the Hedda Hopper Basket.
Roberts noticed this? I thought I was the only one.
Anybody know where Judge Roberts stands on the Second Amendment? If he is indeed an originalist, that would certainly indicate that he considers the right to keep and bear arms to be written in stone. I just haven't been able to find anything one way or the other.
IMO Luttig & Roberts were peers at the top of the list of obviously well qualified & excellent choices from the DC Circut - Brown now fits that bill as well but needs time on the bench before she's ready (to fill a succeeding seat, hopefully, ie Ginsburg's). But between Luttig & Roberts I always thought there was one deal breaker on Luttig's behalf - his opinion ruling against the Bush administration in the WOT, a key area of law for the future justice.
I wasn't too happy with Roberts "Thank You"...calling this a constitutional democracy.
"Some of the Dems have insisted that Thomas is not very sharp
Wouldn't it be ironic if "brilliant" John Roberts' decisions turn out to be pretty much the same as Clarence Thomas's decisions?"
Not ironic at all. I expect it.
Some of the dems aren't too bright. Some of the dems are garden-variety racists, period,
As long as the nominee doesn't jack up protective tariffs, guarantee a "fair wage" or kowtow to the Pope I'm sure that you will be unhappy.
O.k. So he's not ALL bad ;>
Exactly.
I'm pleased with the Roberts choice. Bush was a good poker player with this one, as lots of folks were thinking Gonzales.
I think the FALSE info about Edith (Joy) Clement was given to Certain people to see if they would LEAK it to the press.....Bushie now knows some cannot be trusted.
The man says what he means and means what he says. He said he would appoint a Justice of the highest legal mind and highest integrity, that we can all be proud of. He said he would have no litmus tests, but would pick a justice who would interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. That's all he said. He never said he would pick a woman, or a Hispanic, or a black, or Catholic, or a Jew. He also never said he would pick an ideological firebrand conservative Justice like Janice Brown - or even a pro-lifer, for that matter.
George Bush knows that the best way to trump the ideologues on both sides is with quality. He picked the man who is perhaps the greatest legal mind of his generation, a man who reveres the law and the rule of law, and understands very well what that means. It means he will not bend with the winds of the day - right or left. He will not be another Sandra O'Connor.
He actually wanted to pick the best person for this job. Imagine that! He did not want a trophy. He did not want to pick a fight with liberals just for the sake of fighting. He did not want to "win votes" from an ethnic or religious group. He did not want to manufacture a campaign issue for Republicans next year. He did not care if people here or anywhere jumped up and down or threw brickbats. He wanted to find the best person for the job. Period.
Next to sending troops to war, Bush knows that the most solemn duty of a President is naming Supreme Court justices. He wanted to get it right. And he did.
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.