SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

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

[XJarhead]

Have you read any of the opinions he's written? Just because he has not ruled on any hot button issues does not mean that his basically judicial philosophy cannot be discerned from his opinions.

[Always Right]

I figured you would back down and maintain your lame attacks. Don't even have $20 to back up your nonsense? Unbelievable.

[Huck]

[gipper81]

Ann is absolutely correct here. No wishful thinking need apply.

[Huck]

You need some of this:

[Austin Willard Wright]

Getting pretty technical there aren't you, eh? No, DU did not exist then. I was refering to the special interest leftist groups such as People for the American Way which strongly opposed Souter.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

From the sparse record that is available he does seem to be an originalist. However, he also tries to distance himself from these, as referenced in the article. My whole point isn't that he is not an originalist but that he's a stealth candidate. WE don't know for sure and I think with a nomination this important, we should have much more to rely on than assurances of people who have been demonstrated to be wrong before!

[RayBob]

"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?

Actually...yes! ;o)

Just kidding! OK, I'm only half kidding....

[Huck]

You WILL drink the kool aid and like it!

[Congressman Billybob]

Afternoon, my friend,

From the reading I've done between midnight last night )when I got home), and now, I think Roberts is an inspired choice. I wrote the article below and posted it, in preparation for the three radio interviews I'm doing today on this subject. (One of those is with Doug on RightTalk on FR.)

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Re: John Roberts, Supreme Court Nominee"

[CyberAnt]

Well .. I love Ann .. but I don't agree with her on this.

[Miss Marple]

Well, you said YOU were intellectually hones, implying I am not. And you said that I put party before country, which to me is the same as saying I am un-American.

And now I see that you are portraying anyone who supports funding public schools as a socialist.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to ignore it.

I will be leaving for a while, but will be back later in the afternoon. If you have further comments to make about my politics and character, I will reply when I return.

[GarySpFc]

Roberts wife is the former president of Femminists for Life. You can bet there is no way this man is a Souter.

[AntiGuv]

Yes. I will bet you $1000 that Justice Roberts will agree in full with Justices Thomas & Scalia less than 90% of the time.

[Texas Federalist]

I don't think he will be another Souter either. I was just explaining the point of the article, i.e. there were other choices who have a more defined ideology and are more unlikely to become a Souter or Kennedy.

[Always Right]

Yes. I will bet you $1000 that Justice Roberts will agree in full with Justices Thomas & Scalia less than 90% of the time.

I was taking the positive side of the arguement. So you are saying Roberts will not agree with Thomas and/or Scalia on 90% of the rulings?

[AntiGuv]

I am saying he will not agree with them in full on 90% of the rulings. Even Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy agreed with Thomas or Scalia in judgment over 90% of the time in most terms (e.g., they were in 91% agreement in judgment for the '03 term).

[Texas Federalist]

Roberts' describing Roe as "settled law" is disturbing. It might even be ok if he said "a flawed decision, but too deeply ingrained to reverse." But I'm very unhappy with "settled law." I would hope for a little more spunk from a so-called conservative.

That quote comes from an answer in his confirmation hearings given to Diane Feinstein's question "What is your personal opinion of Roe v. Wade?" He avoided the question by saying it is settled law. The answer does not bother me because my hunch is why would he avoid the question if he had an answer that would placate her?

[Vic3O3]

It's always a crapshoot when someone is appointed to the High Court. The appointment can change a person--and not always for the better.

[Texas Federalist]

That's an easy win. I don't even think Thomas and Scalia agree 90% of the time.