Rehnquist Redux

Rehnquist Redux
Why Ralph Neas and Ann Coulter are both wrong about John Roberts

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."

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.

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.

Either do you. I'm sure many people used the same argument to defend Reagan and Bush with their appointments, but it turns out they had no "inside" knowledge of O'Connor or Souter. Wise conservatives in the electorate and the Senate should demand more.

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.

How do you know the President is trying to accomplish the same goals with this pick that you are hoping he is trying to accomplish? The best assurance that a judicial pick is "secure" is a past record of faithfully applying the consititution on the bench - a record which Luttig, Alito, and Garza have, and Roberts does not.

I'm sure many people used the same argument to defend Reagan and Bush with their appointments, but it turns out they had no "inside" knowledge of O'Connor or Souter

This is a general ambiguous statement a number of people are offering up as a credible argument.

1) Name the people that dissented to Reagan and Bush's picks. Research if there were majority dissents or the majority accepted without question. Did you know g.W.B. dissented on Souter when his father slected him? Research histories of each of these candidates. For example, did you know kennedy defended O'Connor's right to not answer the R v W question? certainly appears he had an inkling of her mindset at the time. Research the history of Roberts. How is it comparable and how is it not comparable to Scalia, rehnquist, Thomas, kennedy, Stevens and O'Connor's histories when they were nominated.

BTW, your initial premise is wrong. At least in 41's case he had an inkling and was warned off by close confidants, and chose to trust the wrong person. It wasn't a matter of lack of knowledge, but poor judgement of character that led to that pick. With Reagan, he sought to name a woman. Right there you have the answer to O'Connor. His goal was not what it should have been when searching for a Justice.

A number of people are demonstrating prejudice against Roberts based on history of prior GOP nominees, but neither Roberts nor G.W.B. carries this questionable history with the Supreme Court or Court in general. If interested in fairness, a person would NOT accuse Bush of being alike Reagan and 41 in matters of the court given his track to date, nor accuse Roberts without fact to be Souter.

Let's toss aside the false argument the Justices you name are exemplary by any conservatives standard. Should they have been chosen, some conservative would have complained. If brown had been selected, some would have been unhappy. A Justice is only ever a consensus conservative pick AFTER years on the Court in which suspicion is broken.

Second, if I recall correctly, prior to the nomination of Roberts a number were recently unhappy with Luttig given a recent decision against the administration in the WOT.

To your question, how do I know what the President is trying to acommplish? He told me. He stated he wanted a Justice that would not make law. A Justice that would not legislate from the bench. A Justice that would interrupt the Constitution.

The President is not a liar. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he tell you what he believes. Where he stands. And he doesn't make a habit of twisting himself into knots to be liked. If after five years you do not recognize this characteristic, I doubt you ever will. But I remind when those tapes by a "friend" that secretly taped him were released, the candidate then Governor Bush was the same man we knew as president Bush. So that is how I know what the president's goals are. He told me, and he is an honest man.

Bush takes the path of least resistance with every domestic decision he makes.

Kyoto. Tax Cuts. Social Security. ANWR. Embryonic Stem cell Research. Like them or hate them- His immigration proposal, Prescription Drugs. neither popular, one pushed through, one still campaining.

Your argument in untrue.

Roberts was definently nominated because he would be acceptible to Democrats.

No. Under consideration would have likely been reasonable demands that he be qualified, but he wasn't nominated to appeal to the unappeaseable. He was nominated because he best suited the criteria Bush desired, and given reports, veted to the point Bush felt confident he would remain consistent through the years.

I hope he was also nominated because he is a textualist or an originalist.

The President made it clear he would appoint someone that woud interpret the constitution, not legislate. That is a known consideration from his own mouth.

Given Bush's tendency to alienate conservatives, I am not going to get my hopes up.

Given Conservatives own unreasonable expectations, it is easy to alienate some of them. If you expect the president to do what he said he wouldn't do, the alienation is on your head. Ex. Immigration. Disagree with proposal but he promised no different. It would seem to be that some conservatives wish the President to be the type of man they ridiculed in the campaign. Someone that states one thing, does another.

Meanwhile a President like Reagan is lionized because his rhetoric matched the conservative movement, but in action he granted amnesty. A little hypocrisy on part of conservatives? Put Reagan on a pedestral but demonize Bush for a proposal that doesn't go as far as that blanket amnesty did. Perhaps if the President were less honest, perhaps if he didn't tell you and I were he stood and instead focused on conservative rhetoric he would be more accepted? If he did that I'd respect him less.

It is the same as in the case of abortion. He won't do as Reagan did, pinpoint its evil in stark dialogue. But yet he's done far more. Signed a bill preventing partial birth abortion. Puts limits at the U.N. on abortion. Will not authorize embryonic stem cell research funded by the Government. Erred on side of Life in Terri's case. Emphasizes abstinance in courses. Etc.. Nor was he formerly a pro-choice Governor as Reagan was. And yet he's attacked because the furthest he will go in rhetoric is to state the Truth. The population still isn't at a place to be rid of it on their own, must continue changing hearts and minds.

This isn't to diminish Reagan, but to state the fact. Bush is not a miserable failure, and Reagan was not a god. Yet the template is extablished Bush bad, Reagan good, and it is that distorted template by some conservatives that repulses me.

Bush has also done much good conservatives have cheered, yet you end with focus only on what he didn't fullfill to your desires.

I don't care whether you have Faith in the President. Neither does he. This isn't meant to change your mind. Only to document flat out objection to your statements barring anyone believe an uncontested argument is then accepted conventional wisdom.

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.