Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
Like father, like son.
Yes, I heard on Rush's show today that he is a big player in the Washington social scene. Of course, it's being spun as being helpful in getting him concerned, but again, it's a potential little warning sign that he may be a Kennedy type who likes to have liberals think well of him. But this is the problem - we're forced to try to interpret all of these little signals instead of being able to point to a truly substantive record, which we could have done with a Judge Jones or Judge Garza or Judge Alito.
That's pretty broad. I can't believe they'd do it in anything but a jocular mode.
That's great advice. Too bad it wasn't followed. I just hope Roberts turns out to be the real thing, not what Ann fears he might be.
Yea, but he will also have guys like Scalia and Thomas to keep him honest.
Now lets hope we can make Roberts happy by putting his best friend on the bench (either he was an usher or his best man at Roberts wedding), Judge Michael Luttig.
Hey, thanks, Stellar! Right backatcha. :o)
I have in the past criticized Ann for her weight (face it, folks, she just needs to eat more,) but never her brain.
Earlier today I was amazed to see folks backing Jerry Falwell's comments on this matter over Ann's. Once I got over my shock at FReepers being so kind to the good reverend, I thought, Please!! Falwell is more than fine on social issues, but Ann leaves him waaaaaay back in the dust when it comes to things related to the law and the Constitution.
EEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeek!
Make mine a double: "UH-OH...."
or in Scooby-Doo: "RUH-ROH Shaggy..."
The only name I'd add to your list of good nominees is Janice Rogers Brown- we wouldn't have to guess about where she stands either.
"Masterful" indeed............
Pay up. Mort Kondrake just quoted the Coulter column on Brit Hume's show. He wasn't joking.
I like Coulter, but she's not privy to the President's thoughts. She hasn't a clue if he "pretended to consider women and minorities."
He had 11 people to consider, and selected one. He could only select one. She seems to think he should have automatically ruled out any of the 11 who happened to be white males.
I'd prefer that he not take gender or race into consideration and I'm glad he did not.
I can understand the politics of it. It would theoretically be easier to get Judge Roberts confirmed but does that justify the risk if all we've been assured about him is incorrect. Then add the fact that there are effectively no checks on a Supreme Court Justice once he's sworn in. If Scalia or Thomas decide tomorrow to become liberal judicial activists, there isn't a damn thing we could do about it. Of course, if that happens, it's time to turn all the cards over and redeal because the game is over, but I think you see the point. There were nominees about whom we wouldn't have had to play a guessing game or try to find the little subtle hints about whether they are true originalists. Yes, they would have provided fodder for the left to attack, but, if the position is the correct one, why not defend it and put the libs on notice? Why try the stealth approach. If the President had nominated Jacques Chirac, the left would still be attacking him. We knew the battle was coming....we should have picked the best hands down nominee, joined the battle and have gotten it settled right out of the gate. Instead, we take the stealth approach and have to walk on pins and needles with the next pick or picks as well. And let me state again, I'm not saying that Judge Roberts isn't an originalist or even a conservative. All I'm saying is that there isn't enough there in the record to make the judgement without having to trust someone else's supposedly informed opinion. If you think that is reliable, try browsing yesterday's posts on SCOTUS and see how many "A reliable and unimpeachable source just told me" posts there were and of them, how many were totally off base. It's the same with every election cycle. We tie ourselves up in knots with each and every poll or pundit comes out and says our guy can't possibly win because.....when in truth they have no better clue than we do!
He's not "another Souter." He's Roberts.
People are individuals.
That raises a tiny red flag in my eyes.
Stop that. You're making me hungry.
Why do you believe that he is going to be a member of the Thomas/Scalia block? Could you explain what reasons?
I'm cautiously optimistic about his nomination--but I see her point about this being another Clements, in light of his backing off the Roe brief. I haven't seen anything that he's penned with his personal opinion on it besides the environmental takings articles he did in law school. And I want more than a vote against Kelo.
I have no idea what DU is, nor do I know what you mean by POTUS.
is this what got you so upset?
Wouldn't it be great if Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh all said that this nominee is wrong, just to defuse the liberal press and dems? Actually they are not that hard to confuse, they live in a state of confusion and fantasy anyway.
or maybe it was this?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956
Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.
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."
which was it? I'm curious.
That's right. We're all unique. Just like everybody else.
Amen, prayers can work wonders in cases like this.
I owe you an apology. I reviewed my post to you and it was not inteded to be smug or harsh but that is the way I read it also.
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.