Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
He is a member of the Federalist society. This guy is nothing like Souter, which everyone knew was a liberal underneath.
Coulter would say, for whom was he working. That will be the "we" to whom he refers. The "we" does not necessarily mean "I."
Guess it's time to ban Ann Coulter like eveyone else who doesn't consume adequate quantities of the artificially flavored fruit drink.
Unbelieveable!
Ann Coulter is saying a lot along the same theme that I said on thread that got pulled, only because the title included the words "Bush Basher".
Maybe Ann saw that thread and got some ideas for her column.
There were some great points made by both sides in that thread, and it was very civil. Too bad the thread was pulled--especially since Ann Coulter (FR's darling) is saying the same thing as some of us said.
As a side note, if that thread did not have the words "Bush Basher" in the title, the thread never would have been pulled since their was some great civil discussion there. (99% of so-called "bashers" are just like Ann Coulter--we have an alternative opinion).
Anyway, I agree with Ann Coulter. The stage was set perfectly for a Jones, Brown or Luttig to be nominated, but Roberts was and could well end up as another Souter.
My suggestion: Never allow any thread to have the title "Bush Basher" in it. That way, members and admin will look at the content of the thread, not its title. After all, Ann Coulter is NOT a "Bush Basher".
She's a lightweight in every sense except her bank account. Her commercial success from selling strident books and views is hugh, but as a legal commentator she isn't series.
As I read the article, I wondered the same thing.
Agreed. In fact, his comments in Rancho Viejo v. Norton are rather disturbing. He dissented from the decision not because he thought the Endangered Species act was unconstitutional but only because they were basing it's constitutionality on the commerce clause. He wanted them to base it on other grounds. Ms. Coulter isn't saying this guy is conservative. She is saying that, in a sense, this was a "safe" choice because the guy has rather deliberately attempted to keep himself a blank slate for this purpose. He is not a Judge Alito or Judge Edith Jones, both of whom have, in speeches, rather strongly espoused originalism in the interpretation of the Constitution. Judge Roberts, to my knowledge, has not. And the assurance of conservative groups and the President just aren't reliable enough to base the nomination of a life-time appointment. It has since been discovered that Souter was downright deceptive in his White House dealings with President George H.W. Busy, protraying himself as solidly conservative. The fact that Judge Roberts has been so very careful not to forthrightly espouse originalism, and in fact, takes great care to distance himself from any controversy, does and should raise some red flags. But the nomination is made and we'll now have to see if we're stuck with an activist. If not, great. If so, it could be a very long and damaging 30 year wait to replace him.
This is true. It was a tactical error on the part of Republicans, and a predictable one given the character of the leaders of our party. Republicans are much more secure in arguing about procedure, decorum and tradition than they are ideology. Most voters don't know what a filibuster even is, much less why they should be concerned about the breach of a hoary old Senate tradition that 95% of voters could not care less about.
On the other hand, it probably makes sense to most voters that Senators would ask a judge about his beliefs, since they are public officials. I realize this breaks the rules of the legal profession, but most people just consider that "lawyer talk" and ignore it. That's why Democrats haven't paid a price for applying an "ideological litmus test." They have failed in trying to prove to America that Bush's nominees are wild-eyed fanatics.
Another Souter on the court would be a disaster...why doesn't the president force the RATS hand and nominate Kenneth Starr?
Is it just me, or does that guy on the left look like Peter Lawford?
That what I have been hoping.
...still lot to learn though.
Could it be reverse psychology. If the libs think the conservative right hates the guy, then the libs have to support him out of spite.
Interesting. This is going to send NARAL and the left into a tizzy...
I think there is a tendency for republican presidents to throw a crumb to the other side. Meaning that, we got this judge through confirmations, the next time we'll give you one you like.
She want's to keep the heat on the President in this regard.
I think Robert's or Luttig are good choices. I don't think we did our homework on Kennedy, Souter etc. At first these judges gave conservative opinions.
There must be some reason as to why he is well liked by so many. I think he will be a strict conservative on the bench without legislating.
In short, I understand what Ann is doing here...but I think she is wrong.
nick
His wife is the former VP of Feminists for Life. Think of that as a stealth insurance plan. If he rules wrong on abortion -- it's the couch or even divorce....
Ditto that!
Ann sounds like she thought she had a shot at the nomination!
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.