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.
And looking at it the other way around, a judges attitude about the RKBA tells us whether he trusts the people or the government first.
Balderdash, if she is equating him with Souter, that's exactly what she's saying.
For all we know the great Mark Levin is on the payroll, ala Armstrong Williams. Don't tell me Levin likes him. Tell me upon what he bases his support.
By avoiding my question, you have answered it.
Bush could have several more nominations, most probably 2 more. ;o)
Sounds like a rationalization. I need only point to CFR to show that Bush can sometimes be painfully, woefully wrong. CFR was actually horrible misjudgement on his part and it happened to involve what is in the most charitable interpretation a serious miscalculation of the Supreme Court. There is reason for doubt, and I wish conservatives would put down the kool aid long enough to exert some real pressure from the right.
I wouldn't count on it. Ectomorphs usually get even thinner.
Sure you can. How aggressive is that first move?
This one is a "slam dunk". I think the game will be Renquist's replacement.(the second move).
I am looking for a woman to fill that one.
Oh yeah, has to be a strict constructionist.
Or maybe Ann is trying to give liberals some false hope to support the guy.
I do agree with her, though, that the GOP conservatives should be more aggressive in defending their judicial philosophy. By constantly nominating people with little or no paper trail, you do take a risk of giving us a Souter or an O'Connor or a Kennedy.
Certainly, and I had that feeling with Judge Edith "Joy" Clements yesterday. But Roberts seems 100% solid in the mold of Scalia. Maybe he will disappoint and only be a Rehnquist. But Roberts is no O'Conner and certainly not a Souter.
That's why it is important that the truth be told.
Whether or not you support Bush in your rulings is not the measure of whether you are a textualist or a originalist.
I know she was referring to Souter. My point is that the attempted comparison to Roberts (who is married and lives in MD with his wife and two kids) has no basis except Coulter's fear of taking a position that is not viewed as the most 'conservative' position on any given topic.
There is no reason to think this guy is anything other than top-notch. Ann is out to lunch on this one. Her presumptions about him are not founded upon anything except her desire to stake out ground to the right of everyone else.
When you consider that a bag of rocks for a Supreme Court would do far less damage to this country than the Court we now have, I don't think it's such a bad idea.
Yes, but he also choose to work for Rhenquist, Bush and Reagan. And has an entire career working for conservative cases. It is impossible for me to believe a liberal lawyer would spend his career arguing in court to overturn Roe v. Wade and fighting for other conservative causes.. I am often skeptical, but I think in this case it is completely uncalled for. It would be nice if he had more bench history to judge him on, but the political reality is that is what makes him confirmable.
If Roberts is a Souter, finding a good recipe for undershorts will be the least of your worries.
All we can do is wait and see.
She is not equating him with Souter. She is saying that his philosophy is unknown. The comparison to Souter is to underscore the potential danger of nominating someone who's philosophy is unknown.
Why do you think so? Giving up ground doesn't automatically make the enemy return the favor.
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.