Posted on 07/20/2005 5:30:00 PM PDT by wagglebee
Focus on the Family Action founder and chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today in response to President Bush's nomination of U.S. Circuit Court Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court:
"President Bush is to be commended for keeping his promise to the American people by selecting such an impartial, accomplished jurist to fill this crucial seat on the high court. Judge Roberts is an unquestionably qualified attorney and judge with impressive experience in government and the private sector. He has demonstrated at every stop on his career path the legal acumen, judicial temperament and personal integrity necessary to be a Supreme Court justice.
"Judge Roberts has clerked for the current chief justice, served as a deputy U.S. solicitor general and argued more than three dozen cases before the high court. We trust that, in light of these rock-solid credentials, the U.S. Senate will work together over the next several weeks to ensure Judge Roberts gets the up-or-down confirmation vote he is entitled to under the Constitution."
James C. Dobson, Ph.D. is a psychologist, author, radio broadcaster and founder of Focus on the Family Action. Founded in 2004, Focus on the Family Action is an action organization dedicated to the preservation of the moral and cultural values upon which our nation was founded.
Good. This will help push the Dems towards filibuster and definite nuking!!!! Yes!!!
One more after that to stack it with a solid conservative majority to keep our moral and economic values protected in this country for at least the next 30 Years!!!!!
Coulter is a lawyer, and probably has a little more insight into this than Dobson. On the other hand, so am I, and my view is that we won't know if he's a conservative until he writes some opinions.
One thing that Dobson and other conservatives ought to do, though, is express their views to the conservative Senators, but not make public statements. It just inflames the liberals and makes the confirmation more difficult.
Coulter biggest complaint about Roberts was her lack of insight, so I am not sure how much weight you can put there. Conservatives who actually know Roberts have been very excited about the pick.
Bush and staff better know that Roberts is what they claim to be because they promised a Scalia-like originalist and there is no excuse if Roberts does end up being one, including one that will vote to overturn Roe.
Many that know Roberts don't think he'd vote to overturn Roe. Can you guarantee he will?
Many??? I have yet to hear one person say that.
Can you guarantee he will?
I can not guarantee the sun will rise tommorrow as I have no control over it, but I would bet on it. I already have one $100 bet on Roberts being a Scalia type.
So far all I have seen are stunning endorsements for Roberts from conservatives, including Jay Sekulow of the ACJU, Pat Robertson, Lou Dobbs, Jerry Falwell, and many others. The only negative I heard was from Ann Coulter, and that was purely based on that he has only been a judge for two years so we can't be absolutely certain where he stands. But Roberts has a long history of working with conservatives advancing conservative cases, is a Catholic, is married to a pro-life activist, and donates money to exclusively Republicans. All signs point that this guy is a Scalia.
It won't take much to "inflame the liberals" because Durbin,Kennedy, Shumer et al. have already made up their minds. Coulter was complaining about the lack of a long judicial paper trail but this would only give the Left the opportunity to prolong the hearing ad infinitem as they examined every phrase and sentence to justify their already predetermined conclusions. I disagree that lawyers are privy to some esoteric insights that others don't have regarding the quality of judicial nominees. Any layman with half a brain who takes a little time to inform himself can easily ascertain if a candidate is a strict constructionist or otherwise. Bush chose someone who is a first class intellect, a person of integrity, and someone who gave Bush the assurance that he wouldn't legislate from the bench. Ultimately, there is NEVER a guarantee that one hasn't made a mistake. But I think in this case although it's not impossible,it's improbable, that this choice will be an activist justice. He'll also be great at replying to the senators' questions and he's got a very likeable personality -- so beating him up too much could backfire on the inquisitors.
No......ya thank?
"Any layman with half a brain who takes a little time to inform himself can easily ascertain if a candidate is a strict constructionist or otherwise."
Quite a few thought they had brains when Souter was brought in. And look what we got!. O'Connor was another with half a brain.
I'll stick with Ann's caution not only because she is a lawyer but because she is a woman. Haven't met men with much intuition. That's why we got Souter and O'Connor.
"Quite a few thought they had brains when Souter was brought in. And look what we got!.?????
We got a Weasel. A New Hampshire Weasel.
I'm not wondering!
BTW: In this case, I'll defer to Laura Ingraham over Anne Counter:
PRESIDENT BUSH--A MAN OF HIS WORD: All we can say is: thank you, Mr. President. Judge John Roberts is a superb choice for the Supreme Court. President Bush did not play p.c. politics with his selection. He did not cave to those who hopedfor the first Hispanic justice (La Raza, et al.), or a woman (his wife!), or a "consensus nominee" (the Dems), or a "balancer" from "outside the federal courts of appeals" (Specter). Instead, President Bush picked someone who is a reliable judicial conservative--not a blank slate a la David Souter or someone who will "evolve" like Anthony Kennedy. Well done!
http://www.lauraingraham.com/public
This nomination will slide through faster than a greased pig on a waterslide.
We can pretend we know what he is going to do, but the point is we don't know. Coulter is right. We're crossing our fingers and toes, getting out the lucky rabbit foot and hoping that this time the stealth candidate will actually be what he was promised he is.
You and I both know that there are NO guarantees in life, particularly when it comes to human behavior!
Knowing this, I have based my POSITIVE evaluation of Judge Roberts 'conservative' fitness for the SC on my own research and the opinions of those I respect . . .
DR. DOBSON AND OTHER FAMILY/LIFE ADVOCATES:
"Bush's High Court Pick Earns High Praise"
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Roberts' qualifications hailed by Dr. Dobson, other family advocates; liberal groups immediately begin the attack.
President Bush on Tuesday unveiled his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court: federal appeals court Judge John Roberts, a choice roundly praised by family advocates.
"Judge Roberts is an unquestionably qualified attorney and judge with impressive experience in government and the private sector," said James C. Dobson, Ph.D., chairman of Focus on the Family Action. "He has demonstrated at every stop on his career path the legal acumen, judicial temperament and personal integrity necessary to be a Supreme Court justice."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, agreed, calling Roberts an "exceptionally well-qualified and impartial nominee."
"Judge Roberts is widely respected for his fair judgments, intellect and integrity," Perkins noted, "all things qualifying him to serve as the next Supreme Court justice."
Pro-family legal experts who know Roberts best say they are extremely pleased with the pick.
You can read the rest of the article at
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0037249.cfm
LAURA INGRAHAM:
PRESIDENT BUSH--A MAN OF HIS WORD: All we can say is: thank you, Mr. President. Judge John Roberts is a superb choice for the Supreme Court. President Bush did not play p.c. politics with his selection. He did not cave to those who hopedfor the first Hispanic justice (La Raza, et al.), or a woman (his wife!), or a "consensus nominee" (the Dems), or a "balancer" from "outside the federal courts of appeals" (Specter). Instead, President Bush picked someone who is a reliable judicial conservative--not a blank slate a la David Souter or someone who will "evolve" like Anthony Kennedy. Well done!
http://www.lauraingraham.com/public/
(GRASSROOTS) CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS:
Introducing John Roberts
A great conservative sigh of relief.
BY MANUEL MIRANDA
Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:00 a.m. EDT
Editor's note: Manuel Miranda joins OpinionJournal's roster of columnists today to report on the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. His column will appear on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays for now and more frequently once confirmation hearings begin or as news requires. Readers of OpinionJournal will remember Manny from last year's Memogate scandal. He's a former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and, before that, senior counsel to Orrin Hatch when the Senator was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, an ad hoc coalition set up to educate leaders of grassroots conservative organizations on judicial issues and coordinate action strategy. It has received funding from a private philanthropist and applied for a grant from a pro-life educational foundation.
Last night George Bush kept his campaign promise that he would name a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. And I for one am ashamed that I ever doubted him. I should have understood the president better. In John Roberts, the president got what he wanted, and we conservatives did too.
You can read the rest of the article at
http://www.opinionjournal.com/nextjustice/?id=110006988
MICHAEL BARONE:
Roberts will redefine 'mainstream'
By Michael Barone
Prediction: George W. Bush's nominee, John G. Roberts, will be confirmed by the Senate. Second prediction: Justice Roberts will do much to redefine what is the mainstream in American constitutional law.
As to the first prediction, of course the left-wing groups—People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice America—are busy trying to gin up opposition to Roberts. They want to see his nomination filibustered and killed. But they aren't likely to get the votes to do that. Even Democrats inclined to oppose Roberts have had to admit that he has superb qualifications. Sen. Charles Schumer, busy raising money from left-wing big contributors and direct-mail lists in his capacity as chairman of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee, had to admit that Roberts is highly qualified. So did Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy and Minority Leader Harry Reid.
They had little choice. Roberts has been called the nation's best appellate lawyer not only by Justice Antonin Scalia on the right but also by Clinton administration Acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger on the left. Roberts and Dellinger are members in high standing of the bar of the Supreme Court, lawyers who served in the solicitor general's office in administrations of both parties who have had private practices specializing in Supreme Court appeals.
Other members include former Solicitors General Seth Waxman, who served in the Clinton administration, and Theodore Olson, who served in the current Bush administration. These are highly skilled and scrupulous advocates who, despite differing views on some issues, have high respect and, from comments I have heard some of them make, personal liking for one another. The solicitor general's office has a tradition of institutional excellence that has been maintained during administrations of both parties, and no one seems to be more respected among the brotherhood of Supreme Court advocates than John Roberts.
You can read the rest of the article at
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_050720.htm
NATIONAL REVIEW (Features a MUST READ snippet about the Election 2000 fight):
The Right Stuff
John Roberts should be a quick confirm.
By Ted Cruz
In 1995, while clerking for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, I and my two fellow law clerks asked the chief whom he thought was the best Supreme Court lawyer currently practicing. The chief replied, with a twinkle in his eye, that he thought he could probably get a majority of his colleagues to agree that John Roberts was the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation.
. . . In November of 2000, I had spent the past year and half as domestic-policy adviser on the Bush campaign, and was part of the team assembling the lawyers to help litigate Bush v. Gore. We needed the very best lawyers in the country, and I called John and asked him to help. Within hours, he was on a plane to Florida.
Humble and soft-spoken, he was happy to be behind the scenes, writing and editing the president’s Supreme Court briefs. Midway through the recount, on November 28, John started heading out to return to D.C. Distraught, I asked where he was going — we were in the middle of enormous legal battle. Quickly, he replied, “I know, but I’ve got a Supreme Court argument tomorrow morning.”
He flew back to D.C. Tuesday night, argued a complicated trademark case Wednesday morning, and returned immediately to Florida to continue helping us represent the president.
Few, if any, other lawyers could have accomplished such a feat.
. . . As an individual, John Roberts is undoubtedly a principled conservative, as is the president who appointed him. He clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, worked in the Reagan White House, and served as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department.
But, as a jurist, Judge Roberts’s approach will be that of his entire career: carefully, faithfully applying the Constitution and legal precedent.
You can read the entire article at
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/cruz200507201432.asp
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.