Posted on 07/22/2005 11:26:19 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Rehnquist Redux
Why Ralph Neas and Ann Coulter are both wrong about John Roberts
(SNIP)
and on the Far Right
Instead, let's turn, as my cousin-in-law probably did not, to "far-right wacko" Ann Coulter. The day after the nomination the columnist offered criticism of Judge Roberts from the right, calling the next justice, a "Souter in Roberts' clothing."
Some conservatives might want to dismiss Ms. Coulter. Not me. She is always provocative (that is a good thing), and a powerful writer. In questioning whether Judge Roberts will be the kind of justice whose rulings will reflect the values of social conservatives, she expressed the worries of everyone who hopes the president we got-out-the-vote-for got it right.
Ms. Coulter describes Judge Roberts as "a blank slate" and she states a fact, "Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives." She adds: "The fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural."
(SNIP)
No, he is not a politician who makes promises he may or may not keep. No, there is no clear read on how he will rule on this or that issue (most especially abortion). But that is what makes conservatives the good guys. We want judges who will be judges, not judges who are a sure thing. That's the way they do things in other countries, where the rule of law is whatever the political class says it is.
Perhaps Judge Roberts will prove not to be another Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. My grandmother always told me that you can know a man by knowing with whom he associates. If Judge Roberts turns out to be in the mold of his former boss, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, that is fine with me.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
You never know until a man is put to the test.
I'm encouraged that a lot of good people say they know him personally and speak well of him. I don't think all of them are the type to speak in his favor just because he is a friend.
We can't expect enlightenment during the nomination process, because all sides will be interested in obscuring their motives, fooling their opponents, and getting the candidate to say something to damage him. It sounds as if he is too smart to take the bait.
Contrary to what this article says, it's not enough to have an open mind. A lot of liberals have open minds to the extent that their brains have fallen out. There must be solid principles and virtues underneath that open mind, or it will NOT come to the best conclusions no matter how high the IQ. Still, I have good hopes.
I would have preferred an Alex Kozinski, but I don't THINK he'll be a Souter.
Ann Coulter's no dummy. Miranda makes the same observations she did, though not in her entertaining style. Though I'd love to see another Scalia/Thomas on the bench, replacing an O'Connor with a Rehnquist is at least a move in the right direction.
I like Rehnquist a lot. My only criticism would be that he seems to have a bit of a court bias. He over respects judges. That's not good. Judges, like any other human, must earn respect. That's not to say there should be no respect for the office, but in a repulbic that used to acknowledge the failings of all men, it should not be an office above criticism and checks/balances. They are not gods.
I know I am gonna take hell for this, but does she have an adam's apple?
Yep, Miranda said he was not going to discuss Coulter but then set abpout doing so.
I was hoping for Ralph Reed or Terry Randall, but I guess I'll settle for John Roberts if he'll answer 'yes' to one question: "Do you listen to your wife?"
Ok, I was not implying anything (as I guess some women have those) just never though Ann was strikingly gorgeous. It seems that she has a lot of manly characteristics. She is also like super duper skinny.
Anyways I do enjoy her cartoonish columns.
Kozinski once said "it takes socialism to make capitalism work" or something very close to that. I would have prefered Luttig, but we got someone from his wedding party and that will probably work too.
Really? As if that has not been pointed out on every thread that mentions her. I really do not know why her lack of girth is of importance to anyone.
Consider this:
Robert's could just be a stealth conservative. He may turn out to be even further to the right then we had hoped. The man, who everyone seems to confirm is extremely intelligent, was not living in a vacuum when Bork was borked. He saw this, he knew then that to get past the slings and arrows of the left, he would have to be:
Clean, sober, brilliant while also being subtle, loyal w/o being over bearing and do so all w/o leaving too much of a paper trail.
Is that probable, no. Is that possible, yes.
And about as valid as the other crystal ball gazing that seems too rampant right now.
I don't think Coulter would disagree with you. The point of her article was that it was irresponsible of Bush to take that chance when there were judges out there that were close to a sure thing and the Republican's retained control of the Senate.
I agree. The decision he authored upholding Miranda in the 2000 term is a good example of this. His reasoning was merely that it had been precedent for so long. The same reasoning applied to Roe would force him to uphold that decision as well.
Kozinski's a little nutty. Luttig, Garza, or Alito would have been my favorites. I don't think he'll be a Souter either. My fear is that he will be Kennedy.
Right now, I think Robert's is a great pick.
And yet Ann has NO knowledge of the President's research, interaction and possible W.H. files on Roberts from his days in the Reagan and Bush administration. She dismisses the President knows what she does not. That is not irresponsibility on the President's part. That is a temper tantrum on hers.
If she wishes to make the point she'd like more personal opinions authored by Roberts, fair enough. But the extent to wish she wants further knowledge to satisfy her own curiosities is as far as she can credibly opinionate. There may be NO doubt in the President's mind, and after five years with this man, I do not believe anyone can advance the idea he's chosen to gamble on hope. The president is confidant Roberts is secure.
Not every conservative. Those on the Left want a person of weak character they can coax through flattery and cocktail invitations to turn. Those on the right want a Judge prejudiced toward conservatism. I only want a Judge that will interrupt the Constitution and respect the role of the Judiciary under the Constitution. Roberts gives every indication of being a conservative being that places the Constitution above ideology. I'm secure in that.
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.