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.
Thanks. All the more reason it should go to Thomas or Scalia.
How true is that, really? At his confirmation hearings, an article from The New Republic was quoted, which states,
"Far from being a judicial activist, Thomas has repeatedly criticized the idea that judges should strike down laws based on their personal understanding of natural rights. Far from being bizarre or unpredictable, Thomas's view of natural rights is deeply rooted in constitutional history. Like many liberals, Thomas believes in natural rights as a philosophical matter, but unlike many liberals, he does not see natural law as an independent source of rights for justices -- for judges to discover and enforce."
Thomas himself agreed with that characterization.
Then guess what? You've sided with the leftists. Both you and they don't like Ann.
***The sad thing about daily commentators is that they have to try to come up with something provocative, unique, and fresh everyday.***
YEP!
I don't think he's actually a member of the Federalist Society....but I haven't checked in the Philadelphia Society yet.
""Hell, I ws hoping for a Robert Bork nomination so you know I'm not a happy camper right now.""
why so Hillary can replace him in 4 years?
$50 says Bush could nominate James Dobson and Ann would be out complaining the nominee is a closet abortion lovin' pedophile islamofascist. Is this women EVER happy?
bump
I love the resurrection of threads to make someone eat crow.
Check out this quote from the article, it may provide a little insight into what's buggin' Ann:
we're ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork
I hate to invoke a yoda-ism, but:
"Anger---That is the way to the Dark Side."
Bump as a reminder.
Its a bit early, but I am guessing Roberts is proving to be very much to the right of O'Conner and fitting in quite well with Scalia and Thomas.
Looks like you might be sharing that crow with Ann. Meirs was replaced by a far superior candidate as she should have been.
Good call on the CJ.
It's really tough to say yet, because the Roberts court has had a remarkable percentage of unanimous decisions so far. What that may signify is that Roberts puts a much higher premium on consensus than did Rehnquist. On the other hand, it may just mean that knowing O'Connor's departure was imminent, the justices agreed to focus on cases with little disagreement.
In any case, I've been meaning to post the first list of rulings but have kept putting it off. But I have some time this evening; I'll do it in a little while!
Anyhow, here goes:
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
United States v. Olson
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Schaffer v. Weast
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., and BREYER, J., filed dissenting opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, O’CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined.
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Lockhart v. United States
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion.
United States v. Georgia
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.
Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.
Evans v. Chavis
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Brown v. Sanders
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.
Gonzales v. Oregon
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined.THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Wachovia Bank, N. A. v. Schmidt
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except THOMAS, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng.
O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Rice v. Collins
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined.
Will v. Hallock
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Of these 16 signed rulings, two are excluded: Schaffer v. Weast in which Roberts did not participate and Wachovia Bank, N. A. v. Schmidt in which Thomas did not participate.
Of the remaining 14 rulings, Roberts and Scalia were in agreement 100% of the time.
In Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., Roberts joined the majority ruling by Ginsburg while Thomas joined the dissent by Stevens. This puts Roberts and Thomas in 92.86% agreement.
Roberts/Scalia: 100%
Roberts/Thomas: 92.86%
After 16 rulings.
Next analysis will post after 20 rulings, to get us back on schedule!
PS. And according to the statistics thus far, Roberts is in as much agreement with O'Connor (92.86%) as he is with Thomas (92.86%).
I trust Mark Levin, true legal scholar over Ann Coulter.
You guys just give her a pass because she is a skinny blond who should "Im a Conservative, you're not" at every turn.
She is wrong on this.
Yeah, I think they have kind of avoided cases too controversial so far. There is a case that revisits part of the McCain-Feingold bill which might prove interesting.
I'm eatin it. I concede that I was partially wrong.
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.