Posted on 07/21/2005 6:00:22 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
I think she raises some points worth pondering in her column, but ultimately I disagree with her.
She wants a justice who will vote to overturn Roe. So do I. She dislikes the stealth-nominee strategy. So do I. She thinks that it is possible that he could end up compiling a record like the one Souter has. And it is possible; those of us who defend him now may end up having reasons for regret.
But while it is possible that a nominee who openly pledged that he would vote to overturn Roe could get confirmed, it is not at all obvious. There are at least 50 senators who support Roe. A definitely-anti-Roe nominee might be able to win some votes from pro-Roe senators, but no Republican nominee is guaranteed the votes of every anti-Roe senator. (Reid and Pryor might find ways to vote with their caucus.) So it may be necessary to nominate someone who is not 100 percent certain to vote against Roe.
There aren't many possible nominees who would provide that certainty. Michael McConnell has, for example, strongly criticized Roe. But he has never, to my knowledge, said that it should be overturned; it's possible that as a justice he would consider himself obligated to re-affirm the precedent. And again, going any further would at least imperil confirmation.
But the fact that someone isn't certain to vote a particular way does not mean that we can't make inferences. The pro-choicers are, I think, correct to suggest that Roberts's participation in the Rust v. Sullivan brief raises the likelihood that he would vote to overturn Roe. It's not dispositive, but it does establish that he's not so favorable to abortion rights that he felt it necessary to resign or refuse as a matter of conscience to participate in the case. The fact that Roberts's wife is pro-life isn't dispositive, either, but obviously it raises the likelihood, too.
In the cases of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, we didn't have these pro-life clues, and indeed in some cases we had some clues that went the other way--strong ones in the case of O'Connor.
So I think Roberts is likely to make the right decision on abortion, and that is among my reasons for supporting him. But the fact that none of us can be certain is one of the things that may get him confirmed. I certainly hope that pro-lifers (and conservatives generally--as I've argued before, I think that Roe is a useful albeit imperfect index for the other views we should want in a judge) don't get taken again, but I think there's a case for hopefulness.
That is the real point of her article. The left-wing zealots have lied and cheated to drumbeat their propaganda long enough. Their monopoly of the information and education outlets for 45 years has created long columns of brainwashed clones.
Now the traitors can claim an extremist ACLU nutcase like Ruth Bader Ginsburg is acceptable and mainstream, but Robert Bork or even John Marshall or John Jay are all radical rightwing fanatics who are totally unacceptable.
This vicious destruction of truth and construction of the 'big lie' has taken years of concerted efforts by professional liars like the ACLU, the MSM, government schools, entertainment industry and the Democrat party. Now truth is turned on its head.
Anthony Kennedy is Catholic. Teddy Kennedy is Catholic. Dumdum Kennedy from RI is also Catholic.
Ann Coulter was dead on target as usual.
This author has it wrong. Ann Coulter implied something very simple--Bush had a chance to nominate an originalist/Constitutionalist, and he did not.
Let's make this clear--Bush did NOT nominate Jones, Brown or Luttig, three absolute and total Constitutionalists.
You know what David Boises said when Sean Hannity asked him who he thought Roberts would most be like if nominated? Justice Breyer!
Ann Coulter, rarely if ever wrong, hit a bulls-eye with her column.
Optimism and The 2nd Amendment are a powerful combination.
Even Rush is withholding judgement. In his tactful manner, he pointed out that Roberts is fond of the social scene in DC. This is after he explained that it is the desire to gain the approval of high society that pressures justices to make the "right" decisions.
You Kool-Aid drinkers don't have any proof that Roberts won't be a disappointment on the bench and that is Ann's point.
I want to know Roberts' allegience to stare decisis v. the constitution. Period.
All Freepers of education and breeding far prefer Victor Davis, who is a true intellectual powerhouse, deeply learned in history, philosophy, and constitutional law.
Like my buddy Joey once said, "Coulter has become an inside-the-beltway chardonnay swilling dilettante!"
"Kennedy have been all over the place...Once Roberts is confirmed, nothing can be done, we're stuck with him and he is only 50 years ild, which means he could be there for 30 years or more."
Agreed. I call suspect any nominee who doesn't cause the left to flop in the aisles with convulsions. You know, like how vampires Bork in sunlight. :)
You know the leftists know what this guy eats for breakfast, so I doubt there's much stealth involved here. At least from their perspective. I hope El Presidente has not been hornswoggled.
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.