Posted on 07/21/2005 7:06:36 AM PDT by Theodore R.
On John Roberts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 21, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush's selection of John Roberts as Supreme Court nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor is being hailed as a stroke of genius.
He has the likely opposition off balance because the nominee does not have a record of writings and positions that can be easily attacked and challenged.
He is said to be a very nice man with a nice family and to possess a brilliant legal mind.
At first blush, Roberts seems to be an acceptable choice for Americans who still believe in the Constitution. Nothing is his background would suggest he is a lawmaker disguised as a judge.
But, given this background, which makes it so difficult to figure him out, could Roberts be fooling the very people who are most supportive of him right now?
It has happened before.
Just think of Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.
It concerns me that Bush apparently chose a nominee based in part on a strategy of heading off controversy with the Democratic opposition.
I personally believe controversy is a very healthy thing in a free and open and vibrant society. Why shouldn't we debate the big issues of the day? Why shouldn't we get our disagreements out on the table? Why shouldn't we challenge the political and cultural orthodoxy of the day?
Supreme Court justices are very important. But are they more important than educating the public on the way our constitutional system is supposed to work?
There are other concerns about Roberts.
Despite his brilliant legal mind, or, perhaps, because of it, he seems a little confused about the way a constitutional free republic is supposed to operate.
While he argued against Roe v. Wade during his days as a lawyer in the administration of George H.W. Bush, he later explained that position in a way that should make all constitutionalists shudder.
Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court about his own personal views on the issue of abortion and the landmark 1973 ruling, he said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Is Roberts not himself confusing a badly decided ruling of the court with "the settled law of the land"?
A Supreme Court decision is simply that – a Supreme Court decision. Hundreds of them have been reversed throughout our history as a nation. There is nothing "settled" about a ruling of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not and cannot make law, or we need to revise Article 1, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves this power exclusively to the Congress of the United States.
These are the kinds of issues that need to be talked about openly and honestly and debated among the American people. In fact, the meaning of the Constitution and the way we apply it to our lives in this country is a bigger issue even than Roe v. Wade.
Without a perversion of the Constitution, we would never have had a Roe. v. Wade decision.
I have one other concern about Roberts – minor in comparison to his characterization of Roe as "the settled law of the land," but worth mentioning nonetheless. In his brief remarks following the president's formal announcement of his nomination, Roberts twice referred to our system of governance in the U.S. as a "democracy."
"Before I became a judge, my law practice consisted largely of arguing cases before the court," he said. "That experience left me with a profound appreciation for the role of the court in our constitutional democracy and a deep regard for the court as an institution."
Later he added: "It's also appropriate for me to acknowledge that I would not be standing here today if it were not for the sacrifice and help of my parents, Jack and Rosemary Roberts, my three sisters, Cathy, Peggy and Barbara, and of course, my wife, Jane. And I also want to acknowledge my children – my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack – who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy."
I may be accused of splitting hairs, but it offends me when our highest public officials refer to our system of governance as a "democracy." The word appears nowhere in our founding documents. The founders saw democracy as a terrible system – one that always leads to despotism. They carefully created a system of governance unique to the U.S. – a constitutional free republic that protected the rights of individuals and minorities and balanced the will of the people with the rule of law.
I don't know about John Roberts. I will accept that he is a brilliant man, a decent man and probably better than at least six current justices. But it takes an exceptionally strong character to stand up to the pressures of the beltway establishment and the decaying American political culture – especially with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
I personally would prefer to know on which side of the barricades John Roberts stands.
Not everyone is a lawyer, so you have to give them some leeway when they base their comments on issues rather than construction, i.e. a pro-life judge = a textualist who disagrees with Roe.
For Roberts to have said that he was not going to follow Roe as an appellate judge would have been wrong. I blasted Farah because he let his views on how Roberts should address a particular issue -- abortion -- override generally accepted judicial principles that are accepted by almost everyone.
His editorial is also symptomatic of the problems you get when lay persons unfamiliar with legal phrasing start parsing words. "Settled law" simply means that the existing case law on a certain issue is clear. It doesn't mean that its correct, and I've seen lots of lower judges observe that they might not agree with something, but it was settled law so they were stuck with it. Overturning "settled law" requires action by a higher court, often the court of last resort.
"Unsettled law" means that there are some gaps in the law, or disagreements among courts of equal stature, so other courts have the freedom to make their own judgments. Roberts was simply using those phrases in that sense, and for Farah to jump on him for that just shows that Farah doesn't know what he's talking about.
I disagree. If Rehnquist would have been the first resignation, then you're right. You've got to advance the ball, and getting anyone less conservative than Rehnquist would have been a loss.
O'Connor was tougher because you were replacing a moderate, which meant that heels were going to be dug in a lot more because the left wouldn't want to disrupt the "balance" of the court. And while you may say that we should welcome a fight, I don't. Not if we're going to lose. We lost on Bork, then Ginsburg, and the result was Kennedy. I only want a fight if I think I'm going to win. Because otherwise, its about ego and not results. If an Edith Jones nomination gets filibustered successfully, how does that help us?
Roberts is significantly more conservative than O'Connor. Getting him in is a win because a swing vote has become a conservative vote. If he's not Thomas (and he may be), he's miles from O'Connor.
So would Chuckie Schumer. Go ahead. Ask the candidate and see what it gets you.
"Confusing how we elect our representation with how our government works is not a good thing either."
Last I heard we use a "democratic" process to elect our representation? Has something changed?
Yes. Quite a lot actually. Starting with the Popular election of Senators. More recently, the push to allow illegals and minors a vote and the popular election of the Executive. There is also the increasing propensity for governmental decisions to be based off of polling data or referendums instead of Constitutionality.
All because of that little, insidious word... "democracy".
True, but I feel the Democrats were vulnerable with the first choice, not wanting to be seen as obstructionist right from the onset.
When Roberts is approved in a breeze, subsequently they will have a license to fillibuster with impunity for having already "compromised" and "cooperated."
"O'Connor was tougher because you were replacing a moderate, which meant that heels were going to be dug in a lot more because the left wouldn't want to disrupt the "balance" of the court. And while you may say that we should welcome a fight, I don't. Not if we're going to lose."
Why so quick to surrender?
You have the collective mentality of the GOP -- losing a fight before it's even begun -- even though the Republicans have FINALLY attain a majority in both Houses. Let's flex that d@mn muscle!
This isn't about a slight upgrade to mirror O'Connor's role as a Pubbie SC moderate (a false premise and expectation to begin with.) This is about ramming through conservative ideologogues and strict constitutionists BECAUSE WE CAN AND NEED TO.
"Roberts is significantly more conservative than O'Connor. Getting him in is a win because a swing vote has become a conservative vote. If he's not Thomas (and he may be), he's miles from O'Connor."
We hope Roberts is a significant upgrade.
The New World Order shall see to it.
How quickly are things moving?
The GOP will fear nominating Pro-Life candidates (though the Dems openly nominate openly Pro-Death abortion-candidates and somehow get them approved.)
The 1st Amendment has already been compromised (Campaign Finance Reform.)
Eminent Domain has recently been established that give license to property confiscation by the gub'mint for private interests.
We no longer have a Border the government is willing to enforce from invasion
Confiscation of U.S. taxpayer dollars is funneled through the UN, the WMF, and foreign aid, while U.S. sovereignty is being surrendered though international treaties and trade "agreements."
The ONLY thing standing in the way of CW II is the maintaining of the 2nd Amendment.
It seems like he is a little old to have a 4 year old son. Makes me wonder -- trophy wife? second family?
Yes, I heard that both children are adopted.
That makes sense. Adoption would explain the age of the children. And no previous wives floating around?
Look, we gotta face reality. Bush tried to flex muscle with Bolton. And he was confirmed....when, exactly?
He tried to flex his muscle with his judicial nominations - and some very good conservatives in there -- and he got the Gang of 14. Remember that?
The reality, as much as we may hate to admit it, is that our Senate majority includes enough RINO's that we lack the power to get exactly what we want. That's neither Bush's fault, nor Frist's. Senators are much harder to whip into line than Represenatives. As I pointed out above, we flexed muscles on Bolton and those judges, and found that we weren't strong enough. That's a fact, unpleasant as it may be. And consider that Bush probably gauged how strong his support would be for various nominees in the weeks leading up to the pick.
If he had nominated Luttig and lost that fight, we would be completely screwed. The Dems would have been massively emboldened, and either its recess appointments, or only moderates get in. We couldn't let them win on the first guy.
So instead, Bush picks a guy who probably is as good as Luttig, but without the political vulnerability. And the Dems are stuck, unable to fight him without killing themselves. It was a guaranteed "win" for Bush, even if not the perfect guy some wanted. Though I still think those folks are going to be pleasantly surprised. And Roberts really is an extremely well-qualified guy.
The next pick will probably be for Rehnquist's replacement, and I think that's the one that you go with Luttig or your most hard-line alternative. You've got one in the bag, so you might as well go for broke at that point because the downside of losing is so much less than losing on the first one. Plus, because you're replacing a solid conservative, the claim that you're changing the balance on the court won't get much traction.
Anyway, F16Fighter, I think the assumption that Bush has given up without a fight overlooks the lost fights on Bolton and the judges. When push comes to shove, there are RINO's who will bolt and undermine him. You can't bet the house when you're only holding a pair of 6's.
"I figured I was the only one in America that caught that."
Probably weren't very many, but I caught it, too and wished he would have said Republic. That said, I think that a lot of people refer to it as a Democracy - unfortunately. Drives me nuts. And, yes, he should know better. Other than that, what I've heard/read so far, I like him.
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.