I am very disappointed by the tone and tenor of Ann's article. She has always been bombastic...and that's why we love her. However, she is also a lawyer...and a former judicial clerk...so a more even keel and academic approach would have been appropriate here.
Here's where Judge Roberts and Justice Souter differ in background:
1. Judge Roberts does have a solid conservative track record. He clerked for Rehnquist...and worked in the Reagan Administration in the 1980s (the Reagan Administration was not known for accepting liberals, afterall).
Justice Souter did not have those conservative credentials. Rather, the Washington establishment relied heavily on John Sunnu's assertion that Souter was one of us. We are not relying on one man's assertion here. The proof lies in the company that Judge Robert's has kept.
2. Judge Roberts has practiced in Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia for most of his career. He is well known in Republican circles -- particularly the legal profession. He is no stranger to the members of the Federalist Society.
In contrast, Justice Souter was little known outside of New Hampshire. He was known to be reclusive...and he was unmarried at the time of his appointment. This stands in stark contrast to Judge Roberts...who is widely known to be a family man.
The mere fact that Judge Roberts has not made a single controversial remark in his entire career shouldn't disqualify him.
Can anyone point to a single controversial remark that Judge Scalia made prior to his nomination to the Court?
Wasn't RINO Warren Rudman also involved in hoodwinking GHWB into nominating Souter?
I seem to remember that Rudman was calling in his chips for supposedly helping GHWB win the New Hampshire primary.
GHWB should've known that something was amiss if the stridently pro-Roe Rudman was pushing Souter.
Anyone who finds Roe acceptable legal reasoning under our Constitution, must also find every other extra-constitutional, fiat-by-judiciary acceptable, too.
Actually liberal pro-abortion GOP Senator Warren Rudman deserves most 'credit'. He was a very close friend of Souter and lied to Bush I about who Souter was, and told liberal Democrats the truth about Souter. Rudman was also the architect of the McCain destruction attacking Christian Conservatives in the Primaries. Possibly the biggest back stabbing RINO in history.
You use a lot of words but make no point other than you're disappointed in Ann's article's "tone and tenor".
That's a good start and reassuring, but Ann's point that Bush and Republicans don't need to (and shouldn't) pull any punches still stands. She lists all our political successes and demonstrates the clear contrast between what Shmuck Shumer thinks is mainstream and what the average American thinks is mainstream.
He shouldn't have nominated a question mark. There was no need to. He should have nominated a sure thing. Roberts is not a sure thing.