Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry fFynt's attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?
Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?
Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights.”
It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.
The only way a supreme court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.
It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.
I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend the Party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism too.
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.
It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.
If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last ten!
We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?
Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.
Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.
As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights –liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.
Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times — the enemy’s own playbook! — that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.
That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.
The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.
And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
Do you even know Roberts? That is simply an outrageous comment.
Think I'm going to fall out of my chair. Coulter actually steps off the Republican plantation and discovers actual conservative thought. Doubt it will happen ever again, but at least she sees it once.
I didn't really want her on the court, and I don't think anyone else did either...we just wanted to see all the Dems' heads explode.
but Levin has something else that's long that AC doesn't have!
Wasn't RINO Warren Rudman also involved in hoodwinking GHWB into nominating Souter?
I seem to remember that Rudman was calling in his chips for supposedly helping GHWB win the New Hampshire primary.
GHWB should've known that something was amiss if the stridently pro-Roe Rudman was pushing Souter.
Anyone who finds Roe acceptable legal reasoning under our Constitution, must also find every other extra-constitutional, fiat-by-judiciary acceptable, too.
I would have preferred Janice Rogers Brown.
Judging by the Republican's past performances, I will continue to believe we got screwed once again, until it is proven different.
Why is Sandy Berger not going to prison?
Because the Bush Justice Department for one reason or another does not want him to.
Why Hillary not prosecuted for just the misdeamenors she committed? Forget about the felonies, that would be too much to hope for.
I agree with Ann here. He may turn out to be just what we wanted, but why do we have to wonder?
He will likely be arguing in front of the new Associate Justice. It would not serve his interests to slam him. There will be plenty of that from others...
Everything I've read indicates that Roberts strongly favors strict interpretation of the Constitution. He's a member of the Federalist Society nearly everything I've seen that he has decided supports the Constitution. Levin and Ann apparently disagree on Roberts - I suspect it will be Ann in this case who cries "uncle" in the end. Though she's right about "no real abortion track record" there is nothing to suggest he would not be in favor of an originalist interpretation there that would send that whole mess back to the states. I would agree, and be happy with that outcome.
You are right about her being wrong, and wrong about her NOT doing her homework.
The talking heads did mention that some Republicans wouldn't like Roberts because he wasn't conservative ENOUGH. She is one of those folks.
Thus, she falls into the negative.
She DID do her homework. She found, to her dismany, that there simply isn't much negative to say about Roberts.
Harhar. Ann always does her homework.
I think that counts for more than people may realize.
You are absolutely correct.
That would have been amazing if he appointed Starr!
That's probably the next one. There will be more in the next three years.
I have seen this as well, but again he is arguing on behalf of his client.
So who was Souter confused with when the first Bush nominated him?
I agree with Ann Coulter. A Luttig, Brown or Jones would have been a conservative's pick. You don't play "tactics" setting up the next pick with SCOTUS. There are only 9 slots and just one could be the swing vote. EVERY pick should be a true, known conservative.
That occurred to me, too. Maybe she thinks some opposition from conservatives will mute the left.
You're in GOOD company!
Souter was an accomplished dork as well as a complete blank. Not so Roberts. There is no comparison here. Roberts would not be my first pick either but I think he is a solid one - especially if Mark Levin thinks the same thing.
She's not infallible. I'd rather trust Laura Ingram (who clerked for Justice Thomas) or Jutice Scalia who has described Roberts as the best Supreme Court appellate lawyer in the country.
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.