SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter.com ^ | 7-30-05 | Ann Coulter

[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.

[Map Kernow]

With most people, what they think and what they say are two different things. Not with Ann. I knew eventually she would speak her mind in a way that would make the Bush hacks on this forum turn on her. Carry on, Ann. Speak your mind. God bless you.

[subterfuge]

"Maybe Ann needed to sell more books to the fringe whack-jobs..."

Oh, you mean like the 50% of FReepers who have bought her books?

[steveegg]

That's a bit more direct, but methinks you just fleshed out the meaning. Those who are conservative because they believe it to be "popular" tend to turn leftward when the only group left to please is the Washington insiders, while those who are so because that is how the Constitution is written tend to remain so.

[AntiGuv]

I dunno if anyone's posted this yet (probably) but just in case!!

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."

*....

"I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize [Roe v. Wade] as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions."

-- Roberts, during 2003 Senate Judiciary hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.

Oh well - I guess we'll see! The #1 thing I want out of GWB's Supreme Court justices is to see Roe v Wade overturned. I'm not very confident at the moment..

[frogjerk]

Where is what?

[nickcarraway]

Levin's comments.

[CollegeRepublicanNU]

I'm still reading up on Roberts.. Thinking about going to my farmhouse in Vermont and sitting under my favorite apple tree in jeans and a tee shirt....

[BurbankKarl]

Ann needs to stop drinking.

[Willie Green]

That's what's disconcerting.
Especially on issues of border control.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Imagine being married to that woman."

I think she's the type who will never marry, or will wait till she's well into her 40s. She's a self-preservation type, and that type defers marriage and commitment because it spooks them. IMHO

[frogjerk]

Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

From: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956

[Happy2BMe]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WEDJULY 20, 2005 18:42:35 ET XXXXX

FIGHT -- FROM THE RIGHT: COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

Coulter continues: 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?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------

[LibWhacker]

Wow, I was fairly content with the nomination until I read this. Ann comes through again, sweeps away the smoke and lets us see things clearly.

... 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...

Doesn't seem to me that anyone who disassociates himself from criticism of Roe v. Wade can be an originalist. There's nothing in the constitution that even remotely suggests abortion should be viewed as constituitonally protected right. Count me worried.

[street_lawyer]

see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1446880/posts?page=6#6

 

[Plutarch]

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin describing John Adams:

Ann means well for her country, is always an honest woman, often a wise woman, but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of her senses.

[old and tired]

I don't know how closely you've followed this nomination, but Roberts is a practicing Catholic with two young adopted children. His wife is a former head of Feminists for Life.

When I first heard he was Catholic and that he only had two kids, I have to admit I was worried we had another CINO on our hands. But I heaved a big sigh of relief upon hearing that his kids were adopted and that his wife is an active pro-lifer - have you ever in all your days met a woman active in the pro-life movement with a pro-abortion husband? I don't believe there's any such animal. I'd like another diehard conservative like another Thomas or Scalia on the court, but a non-socialist pro-lifer will suit me just fine.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The #1 thing I want out of GWB's Supreme Court justices is to see Roe v Wade overturned. I'm not very confident at the moment."

I think Roe is horrible law and horrible legal reasoning, but that's because I like things to be logical and according to law. Basically, I think it is a lawless decision and would like to see it overturned simply as a matter of principle. But as a practical matter, overturning Roe wouldn't necessarily change a lot. Where I live, it would change virtually nothing; the voters have repeatedly supported very liberal abortion laws.

[Peach]

What was Ann Coulter thinking saying this? She's lost her grip and will rue the day she wrote/said this stuff, imo.

Could she not have done one hour's worth of research before writing? Shaking my head in disbelief.

[subterfuge]

You use a lot of words but make no point other than you're disappointed in Ann's article's "tone and tenor".

[NCSteve]

I assume all the Bush apologists have already been here...

Aren't they a fun bunch? Next week she'll go after the NYT or some other Democrat scion and every single one of the pubbie lemmings who are eviscerating her on this thread will be beatifying her on that one.

Stupidity, it seems, is not solely a liberal trait.