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.
So, how are you two going to treat a case where they join in an opinion, and one of them also issues a separate concurring opinion?
PS. Even Justices Thomas & Scalia don't agree with one another in full over 90% of the time. These are the percentages for the last ten terms:
1995: 83%
1996: 88%
1997: 82%
1998: 76%
1999: 81%
2000: 76%
2001: 82%
2002: 89%
2003: 73%
2004: 84%
But if you wanna bet $1000 on it for the next term, then I'm game!!
"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."
Just because I stated that about myself doesnt mean that I didnt think you were.
"And now I see that you are portraying anyone who supports funding public schools as a socialist."
Public schools should not exist, period. They are transmission belts for socialism, and brainwash our kids with propaganda.
are you aware of the communist goals as written in the 1963 congressional record? pay close attention, they are prophetic:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
(research the history of the NEA, it is a dangerous socialist entity)
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
( dems against parental notification)
Please, realize that socialism in any form is ultimately dangerous to the future of our nation as the founding fathers intended it. Once you give the people entitlements, it's almost impossible to take them away.
Thomas Jefferson once said "democracy will cease to exist when you take from those who are willing to work and give to those who wont."
I love skinny chicks.
I understand where Ann was coming from, but I am 100% confident this is a great pick. Certainly his lack of decisions on controversial cases leaves questions for some on his positions, but I don't see it. I really can't imagine a better pick, and I would literally be shocked if I was wrong on this one. He will be a Scalia-type.
Grampa Dave posted it last night:
"According to this blogger (see below) Scalia called Roberts "far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country" - and said that opinion was widely shared among justices!!! That suggests a quality of intellect that will be very influential on the court for years to come:
"For what it's worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country."
posted by Stuart Buck at 7:11 PM
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2005/07/roberts.html
The question is whether they join in full, join in part, or join merely in the judgment. They are three different well-established standards of Supreme Court Justice affinity, and we'd have to agree upon one.
Me too!...;-)
Coulter clerked for an district appealant judge about the same time this guy did. That's where she gets her Constitutional law background.
Also when she was part of the elves chasing Clinotn's criminality that overlapped with, what I hear was, Robert's stint as chief deputy for Ken Starr. With both based back there in the East Coast corridor, he is not an unknown to her and there may be background that she is not putting in the article.
So I say to John Robert, "I'm from Missouri, and, by your service you better, Show Me"
Btw, speaking of Sununu, is he really a RINO? I thought he'd had a reputation of being a solid conservative, at least at the time. Wouldn't be surprised to find some RINO leanings though.
His son who's now senator from NH has been disappointing on some things I think. Don't remember what.
Ah, there is a huge difference between being a "friend" and being the "best friend."
Here is my point....no one pulled any punches. Roberts isn't a question mark. In fact, his conservative credentials are as solid as they come.
Roberts is a sure thing. He is another Scalia.
The last few times I gambled I voted for Dubyas Daddy three times, Dole once, and Dubya twice.. and WON most of those times.. Kinda took the thrill out of winning for me..
Its Like winning at Monopoly.. you can win and LOSE at the same time..
Whats lost.?....
TIME... like posting to you when your panties are bunched up..
Roberts would have to agree in full with at least one of 90% of the time. I guess the full agreement part may make it difficult to track, but I am confident Roberts will be in full agreement with at least one of them 90% of the time.
Yeah, but that girl can reach the fresh leaves on the top of the tree. ;^D
Guess it depends on the harshness of the criticism posted. I'm on another thread where criticism of the current subject appears to be policed by one of the persons on the thread...followed by another poster/police and so on. Don't get it because I like looking at all sides of a story but I'm not a mod. And they have a job to do.
If you only knew.. That pic don't even appraoch my anger..
Well that's the point.
Less than 1% of the members here are "Bush haters", but about 30-40% of us are labeled that way periodically simply because we state the type of things Ann Coulter states, but like you said, look at the difference in the tone directed at her as opposed to us.
I believe FR, the ownership and the moderators have seen this over the last 12 months or so and have become more open in allowing BOTH viewpoints, although there remains a bias toward the "blind party loyalists". That is too bad because the best comments are usually from those of us who are the most realistic and don't "follow the crowd".
I believe it became obvious to FR management that there are people like us (and even like Ann Coulter, for gawds sake) that have an alternative opinion at times. I have seen far more tolerance of alternative opinion at FR which has made this site a far better site. Cheerleading sites are not taken seriously, and FR has moved away from that and now is a more serious site for discussion.
Thanks for the heads up.
Ann is paid to be skeptical, skeptical with bite. She's earning her money with this column, and I'm glad to read it, glad to know she's cautious, doesn't worry me at all.
Ann might be a little ticked she was caught off guard by Bush naming Roberts. (I bet she thought it would be Edith Clements.)
Laura Ingraham is thrilled, Mark Levin ecstatic...I think Ann will get on board too.
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.