[rwfromkansas]

I am shocked Ann wrote an article like this without doing any research or using her brain.

Roberts is not Souter 2. Just isn't.

That's it.

[tame]

Ann Coulter has expressed in this article many of the concerns that I have regarding this choice.

I just don't have enough information about Roberts to know if he's a good choice...and that's the problem.

I truly hope my concerns are alleviated. I hope that for once a "stealth" nominee will hurt the left.

But one question I do have: Even if Roberts turns out to be generally conservative in the mold of Rehnquist, why not go for the very best...a solid conservative in the mold of Clarence Thomas?

I realize that it probably has to do with strategy, but I believe we would win with the best possible choice...so why not take it all?

Now, if Roberts turns out to be like Rehnquist, and then Bush makes the next SCOTUS choice (after Roberts) even more conservative, then the strategy would seem have merit. This has yet to be seen.

I have a wide range of emotions over this pick. on the one hand I am relieved that it's not Gonzales, on the other hand I am concerned since I don't know where this guy Roberts is coming .

For now I am reserved about this choice until I have further info.

[Kokojmudd]

Hope she is wrong. I was one to predict another souter but if Levin backs Roberts that is a darn good thing.

[Oliver Optic]

If three months ago someone had asked me ... "Would you like to trade Sandra Day O'Connor for Judge Roberts?" ... I would have danced a jig.

And I suspect Ann Coulter would have, too.

We've been so Souter-ized, we have trouble believing it when we win one.

[ladiesview61]

Ok, I hear ya Ann, but now I'm gonna tune into Rush and see what he has to say..see ya dudes! have a good one.

[Huck]

Uh-oh. Ann put a fly in the kool aid.

Huzzah huzzah!

[Lijahsbubbe]

Bttt

[Darnright]

I don't suppose Ann's doing a "Tar Baby", here.

[linkinpunk]

I don't think I agree with her, but I need to see a picture of her in a mini-skirt again before I decide for sure.

[WhiteGuy]

This one is a throw-away and a diversion.

the next one will be the one this administration really wants...............

[outlawcam]

This will be interesting. Ann makes some great points and is entertaining in her unique way. I really hate the fact that we'll have to wait 3-5 years before we find out if we were rewarded or screwed for voting for Bush. By then, we'll have made voting decisions based on the presumption that we did the right thing. If it turns sour, what do you all think we should do?

[altura]

Very snide and tacky column.

Sounds like she thought it would be her.

[cynicom]

I assume all the Bush apologists have already been here to attack Coulter. No need to read their bile.

[Map Kernow]

With most people, what they think and what they say are two different things. Not with Ann. I knew eventually she would speak her mind in a way that would make the Bush hacks on this forum turn on her. Carry on, Ann. Speak your mind. God bless you.

[AntiGuv]

I dunno if anyone's posted this yet (probably) but just in case!!

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. It's a little more than settled. It was reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it's the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."

*....

"I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize [Roe v. Wade] as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions."

-- Roberts, during 2003 Senate Judiciary hearing, when asked for his own views on Roe v. Wade.

Oh well - I guess we'll see! The #1 thing I want out of GWB's Supreme Court justices is to see Roe v Wade overturned. I'm not very confident at the moment..

[BurbankKarl]

Ann needs to stop drinking.

[Happy2BMe]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WEDJULY 20, 2005 18:42:35 ET XXXXX

FIGHT -- FROM THE RIGHT: COULTER SAYS BUSH PICK WRONG

"We don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever... Oh, yeah...we know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney."

So declares conservative columnist Ann Coulter in a new dispatch set for release.

Coulter continues: 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?

Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------

[LibWhacker]

Wow, I was fairly content with the nomination until I read this. Ann comes through again, sweeps away the smoke and lets us see things clearly.

... 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...

Doesn't seem to me that anyone who disassociates himself from criticism of Roe v. Wade can be an originalist. There's nothing in the constitution that even remotely suggests abortion should be viewed as constituitonally protected right. Count me worried.

[k2blader]

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.

I share Ann's skepticism.

Is Roberts for or against stare decisis?

That is key.

[Mrs. Don-o]

ping