SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

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

[Stellar Dendrite]

I think perhaps FR and moderators perhaps agree with some of our points. Maybe initially criticism of CFR or prescription drugs or funding for socialist schools would have appeared too critical, but now we can look back at the big picture and really see where the republican party has moved leftward.

i've made this point over and over, but its a good one and deserves repeating. if the founding fathers were reincarnated and formed a political party, the republicans of today would appear as lite-leftists compared to them.
voting democrat is pushing the fast forward button to socialism, while voting republican is a small yet ineffective brake on socialism.

[MNJohnnie]

In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), Roberts wrote:
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."


"Abortion of live babies is not mainstream..."

Did you see what Babu posted about Roberts on Roe V Wade? I reposted it above.

[jla]

Hey Ann, ya think that anyone who argued cases for the Reagan Administration ISN'T a bedrock conservative?

Please point out where Ann C. said he was not.
Matter of fact, point out in the column where she says "Roberts is the wrong pick".

[Steve_Seattle]

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, I found it rather confusing and too summarized for me to get a clear view of what the issues were, what the pertinent laws were, what the constitutional issues were, and where Roberts stood. (I'm not being sarcastic; I do appreciate your finding the link.)

[MNJohnnie]

"Ann, sorry babe...like I told you last night when we were talking...I think you're wrong on this one"


Ummm next time can you get us some new Ann pictures and post them? :-}

[goldstategop]

My take it is that absent the ultimate abolition of judicial review, praise for a judge's philosophy means nothing since the Supreme Court is a difference place from lower courts. Its the next thing to be being God and the temptation to slide Left to please the academy and the media will be enormous. At some point, being human, you begin thinking about your legacy, and you start worrying what the MSM editors think of your opinions and whether you will be invited to the right parties. Washington is a town that makes easy to morph into a liberal so you be well liked. I'm not saying Judge Roberts isn't a good man and he may well be a conservative but you can't judge whether he's going to be a great Justice on the basis of a few lower court opinions. In that regards, Ann's caution is well placed. We were burned before.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[MNJohnnie]

"Well, she does make some very persuasive points. Especially this one: Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural."

Considering the Abortion on Demand at any time for any one paid for by the Govt mindset of our political foes, the below is quite controversial.

"In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), Roberts wrote:
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

[goldstategop]

And McCain's praise of Roberts should set off warning bells in our heads. Why does the RINO like a conservative. I can't think of one reason McCain would like one. Can you think of one?

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[cogitator]

Please point out where Ann C. said he was not. [a bedrock conservative]

She implies that because he doesn't have a long "track record" of legal opinions as a judge, that he could end up being liberal as Souter. She doesn't say he isn't conservative, she just indicates that he might not be -- her preference obviously being for someone with more outspoken views in a longer record of jurisprudence, like Luttig or Edith Hallan Jones.

Reading the commentary, it's clear the the commentators admire Bush for choosing someone who will take the Court further to the right, and also someone for whom it will be very difficult for the Senate Dems to find any traction to argue against. Double whammy.

[MNJohnnie]

Bush, like his father before him, is no conservative. He's a genuine "moderate", of which there are very few in either party.

I sincerely hope that Ann's predictions here about him are untrue, but I have to admit, I am worried.

I would have been far happier with a candidate with solid conservative credentials, and she is right on target about Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor.


Read post 5. It will make you feel better about Roberts. It is a posting of one of his position on Roe V Wade

[nikos1121]

You might be right, however then, why have scalia and thomas stayed true to their form?

Also, one can say he's maintained a neutral track record in the appeals courts maybe he will show us his true conservative make up once on the SC.

I don't recall the backgrounds of o conner, kennedy or souter but I don't think they had the high marks that Roberts had or the experience of advocating cased before the SC in behalf of the USA on conservative issues.

The next SC nominee must be a tried and true conservative thinker with the writings to back it up.

Yes, we've been burned before...in fact looking back on the bozos that republicans have nominated makes me wonder what in the heck were these people thinking?

[Austin Willard Wright]

I agree. Please note, however, that Coulter's source was an RNC set of talking points that despicted him as an opponent of welfare time limits. The idiots at the RNC appeared to like this stand!

[MNJohnnie]

"And the assurance of conservative groups and the President just aren't reliable enough to base the nomination of a life-time appointment"

Ok, let me get this straight. There are a whole bunch of Conservative groups emailing me relentlessly to support Roberts. I am suppose to ignore that, and the President, and put more faith in the statements of some unknown poster on a website? I guess I would need to see some solid facts to back up your opinon before I could agree with your view.

[Daus]

This article is so pointless and nieve. Nieve, in that she thinks that the Washington insiders who are advising the President don't really know Robert's position on all the issues. Of course they do. Guess what? They also had a pretty good idea on Souter as well.

[goldstategop]

Well... if a judge does slide Left on the Supreme Court, how you will you answer the critics? President Eisenhower's famous reply comes to mind his big mistake was Earl Warren. A President can pick well and he'll also make the occasional flub. In the end it all comes down to the fact no one can control the thoughts and choices another human being will make, not even Presidents.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Always Right]

And McCain's praise of Roberts should set off warning bells in our heads. Why does the RINO like a conservative. I can't think of one reason McCain would like one. Can you think of one?

McCain is not a RINO, but an egotistical idiot. McCain has a very solid conservative voting record, but he likes to get publicity. The only thing McCain's opposition or support means is that he thinks it is better for his Presidential apirations.

[VictoryGal]

Gotta agree with you here. Anyone got a feel for Laura I.'s take on Roberts?

After doing a little digging, he seems bona fide to me.

[tflabo]

"Souter wasn't married to a pro-life advocate"...

Of course not... rather he is Ruthie's little Weasel Boy. Notice how he hangs around Buzzy Ruth and his rulings are nearly always in line with hers? Weasely Souter gets to hiding under Ruthie's skirt tails. What a squish he is and Daddy Bush wasted that pick on the N.H. Weasel... BIGTIME.

[mbraynard]

Yes - details.

Ann is fundamentally correct. Bush can pick anyone he wants. Anyone. Why pick someone that could slide through a Dem senate when that isn't needed? Why have uncertainty? Why not find a great 39 year old litigator doing pro-bono work for right wing causes all over the place (like the left did when they appointed Ginsburg - though she was not 39, more like 89).

[tflabo]

"McCain is not a RINO, but an egotistical idiot. McCain has a very solid conservative voting record, but he likes to get publicity. "

McCain't got the disease,,,, 'Specteritis'