The ex-boyfriend of Ann is certainly male model material.
Peter Lawford
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.
The ex-boyfriend of Ann is certainly male model material.
Peter Lawford
I beginning to think that Ann put this out there on purpose to give liberals some hope that maybe this guy is a Souter to soften the opposition. Ann is a smart person. Conservatives are happy with the choice, it is the Dems looking for reasons to support or oppose the guy.
As far as this column, Ann is flat-out wrong, and I don't understand why she has published something that will be fodder for the left. Since the nomination is made, it does no good to wring one's hands in public, if she thinks this is a bad choice. What does she want...the President to withdraw this name?
President Bush and his father have spoken before about how Souter was a bad mistake. President Bush campaigned on having someone on the bench who interprets the law rather than making it.
The idea that this man is like Souter is laughable. I am as puzzled and irritated by this column as I was by Peggy Noonan's over the top criticism of the President's Inaugural Address, which also made no sense.
At any rate, she is wrong, and this column's tone is strident and makes me think less of her.
Why????? Because you said? Show me any piece of evidence except that which is taken from a legal brief showing Roberts' view on Roe v. Wade, the Second Amendment, or the COmmerce clause.
However, the social conservatives did not work this hard for this long for a well-qualified, smart jurist who thinks and reasons his way into voting to uphold Roe.
Grrr... CBB: you beat me by 0:07 in saying nearly the same thing!
Glad to hear you're doing interviews. "break a leg"!
Where does he stand on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment?
I only scanned most of the comments but I saw a lot of personal attacks, which when you consider she is/was practically this site's mascot is pretty bad.
She'll be banned in a week.
I just don't have enough information about Roberts to know if he's a good choice...and that's the problem.
I truly hope my concerns are alleviated. I hope that for once a "stealth" nominee will hurt the left.
But one question I do have: Even if Roberts turns out to be generally conservative in the mold of Rehnquist, why not go for the very best...a solid conservative in the mold of Clarence Thomas?
I realize that it probably has to do with strategy, but I believe we would win with the best possible choice...so why not take it all?
Now, if Roberts turns out to be like Rehnquist, and then Bush makes the next SCOTUS choice (after Roberts) even more conservative, then the strategy would seem have merit. This has yet to be seen.
I have a wide range of emotions over this pick. on the one hand I am relieved that it's not Gonzales, on the other hand I am concerned since I don't know where this guy Roberts is coming .
For now I am reserved about this choice until I have further info.
truthfully....I'm not too sure.
AC can look a little bizarre in some of her pictures
During Mr. Roberts’ oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice asked, “Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?” He responded, “No, your honor, the issue doesn’t even come up.” To this, the Justice said, “Well that hasn’t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.”
The original article I saw made no mention of Kenneth Starr, or the fact that the Justice was not referring to Mr. Roberts, and I had not, at that time, known that Mr. Roberts was not acting as the solicitor general; I was misled by the context, and recalled it as simply having referred to Mr. Roberts.
However, it is still true that on several occasions, he argued for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, when the court could have upheld a law restricting abortion without overturning Roe, most notably Rust v. Sullivan: “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should beoverruled…. [T]he Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right toan abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.”
Their are no "sure things" especially when discussing judges. What I have seen in his previous arguments and rulings is a man who interprets the law in a narrow and uncompromising fashion. From every indication Roberts does not legislate from the bench and personally abhors those who do.He appears to be a classic jurist in the mold of William Rehnquist.He has a tremendous amount of support from rock sold conservatives like Starr, Hewitt, Meese, Levin,Malkin, the Christian right etc etc. Are all these people wrong and Ann is the only one who sees the truth?
Although I disagree with AC on Roberts, I don't think the Left can use this as fodder. AC's argument is that he is not conservative enough, the Left is not going to use that argument.
I agree with you that it is difficult to fathom what AC would like to accomplish with this hastily published screed. I think she wants to get on all the talk shows and radio shows in the next two days and this is a way to make sure that happens.
The French Fry ruling seemed to indicate that Roberts follows the law even if the PR might make him look bad.
Rehnquist isn't a solid conservative?
Roberts is conservative. Period.
He is more like Rehnquist, but he is conservative.
Aye, that is the question. I've been looking, but have as yet found nothing.
More likely she thought one of her friends did.
Relax...Roberts is an excellent choice...he'll make us proud...you'll see he'll not be an activist jurist. We'll find him to be a constitutionalist not a constructionist as Gonzales is.
OBTW, if Mark Levin has given him his seal of approval...that tells the whole story.... ;o)
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.