Posted on 07/22/2005 4:27:41 PM PDT by Max_Parrish
WHITE HOUSE WATCH Legal Theory by Ryan Lizza Printer friendly Post date 07.21.05 | Issue date 08.01.05 E-mail this article
The question this week is: Why did George W. Bush make such a seemingly responsible choice? There is little in the history of Bush's decision-making that would have predicted the president would settle on someone like John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court...
Finally, Bush did not slavishly reward his base of evangelical conservatives. Some conservatives are describing Roberts as a "bold" choice. He is clearly not. His commitment to the social causes that animate the religious right is shrouded in mystery compared with that of other potential nominees, such as Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, Michael McConnell, or J. Michael Luttig. Some of the more rabid conservatives have started to point this out. On the fringes, there was Ann Coulter,... "We don't know much about John Roberts," she sputtered. "Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives." Over at The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes, perhaps the most pro-Bush columnist in America, posted some morning-after regrets, noting that Bush had made a "safe" choice rather than pick a true ideological conservative. National Review's endorsement of Roberts was notably tepid. "He will, almost certainly," the magazine announced with some trepidation, "be an improvement on his predecessor."
These conservatives had reason to expect more...Considering the importance of the high Court to his most rabid supporters, there was every reason to believe that Bush would choose a more ideological conservative than Roberts. ...The more brass-knuckle and base-pleasing Luttig apparently made it to the end of the sweepstakes but was passed over for the more moderate, more even-tempered, and more easily confirmable Roberts. After 15 years of crying, "No more Souters!" religious conservatives have been presented with someone whose views on many social issues are as unknown to them as those of their judicial bête noire were in 1990.
Why, then, did George W. Bush break with all of his known habits and instincts Tuesday night? For one, the Democrats' strategy of unified opposition and obstruction may finally have chastened the White House. Democrats have recently made life miserable for Bush. They have killed Social Security privatization and ground the rest of Bush's domestic agenda to a halt. They have eaten up weeks of valuable time in the Senate with their opposition to lower-court nominees. They buried John Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. Republicans warn Democrats that their obstructionism will cost them at the polls. Perhaps. But it also appears to have forced Bush into choosing a more conciliatory nominee. Bush seems to have calculated that, with the Iraq war, his failed domestic agenda, and even the Karl Rove scandal, he cannot afford a contentious confirmation battle. He seems to have been genuinely spooked by the Democrats' threat of a filibuster....So, while Senate Republicans are hailing the Roberts pick for its boldness, it may actually be a sign of Bush's current weakness.
Another theory is that the nomination process may have been controlled by slightly more pragmatic elements within the administration. In Pursuit of Justices, David Alistair Yalof's excellent book on how presidents choose Supreme Court nominees, the author notes that internal champions are always the most important factor...Attorney General Gonzales and White House Counsel Harriet Miers are workmanlike Texans who owe their careers to the president. Everything we know about them suggests they value Bush's political standing over the pursuit of ideological crusades.
...Though not considered a real movement conservative, he is extremely well-liked by Washington's network of Republican lawyers, even, reportedly, by those who think his ideological credentials are a little suspect...The combination of Texas pragmatists, such as Gonzales and Miers, and Washington legal insiders may have been the perfect mix to vault Roberts to the top of Bush's list.
Finally, one can't dismiss the power of the personal when Bush makes a decision. Bush reportedly hit it off with Roberts, not an insignificant fact. In 1981, O'Connor charmed Reagan during her interview and cinched her nomination. Roberts is universally described as brilliant but modest, a characteristic Bush cherishes. Bush was also likely taken with the man's devout Catholicism and the fact that he has two adopted children. In the end, the politics of Bush's current dire situation, Roberts's internal champions, and his personal relationship with the president seem to have conspired to help Bush make one of the better and more atypical decisions of his administration.
...Bush seems to be getting most everything he wants. He is nudging the Supreme Court to the right. His nominee is likely to have a relatively smooth conformation process. His evangelical base won't revolt. Bush may even win some political capital to spend on the rest of his agenda. Perhaps he will learn that, sometimes, the politics of conciliation pay more dividends than the politics of confrontation. If so, John Roberts would truly be a historic choice.
Hey Troll (7/21/05) could you do us a favor and not sign-up yesterday and then start publishing tripe like this 24 hours later.
Here's my theory - Coulter and others are putting on a false front to put you libs in a false assurance that Roberts could be trouble. The fact is I want a SCJ that is an originalist (i.e. Constitutionalist aka strict constructionist) not a legislating-from-the-bench type.
If I am right about my theory then shortly after Roberts is overwhelmingly confirmed Coulter will write an article about how she had taken a page out of W's and Rove's book and hoodwinked the left. Either way - troll off!
Opaque? No, I see you quite clearly.
All good points Marcus, except some of Schumers questions were "dumbass" IMO.
little by little....and if it weren't for the leftist press with their tacit permission from the 'rat leadership to bash President Bush at every turn, he would have the coutnry way ahead on the war on terrism also.
No, he is not a member of the Federalist Society. That was initially reported, but was an error.
I have a feeling that if GWB nominated Thomas Jefferson we'd still get a bunch of paranoid Republicans who are looking for betrayal at every corner to complain, and point to a personal letter containing the phrase "wall of separation" as their evidence why the guy is a bad choice and "not an originalist".
No doubt I could do you a favor and not challenge you to think. There are quite a few fellow conservatives that think like trolls: Ann Coulter, Fred Barnes, NR editorial staff, (etc.)- all of whom are deeply disturbed by Bush's uncertain selection.
I know it is far easier to dismiss all of us here who don't follow every inflection of Bush as gospel wisdom than to follow an argument - but hey, every side has its dogmatists looking for heretics, including ours.
Coulter and others are not 'false' writers - I've read National Review for 30 years and I think your more than a little foolish to suppose they are trolls or phoneys.
Either way, I don't find your dim-witted accusations of 'heretic' to be reassuring as to the quality of our supporters.
Ah yes, the left is falling into Bush's ingenious trap. Mwuhuhuhahaha.
I want Michael McConnell next. He is a strict constructionist, but he is a part of academia and has the support of some liberal professors. He once called Roe "embarassing to anyone who takes constitutional law seriously." "Michael McConnell would be my choice," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. He is rumored to be Rehnquist's replacement. McConnell is 50 years old.
http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/mcconnellm.html
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1117789517125
Perhaps, but not unethical.
He didn't nominate Thomas Jefferson. He nominated a man about whom some FReepers are relying on the memberships of his wife and the number of his children to get clues about his judicial philosophy. There were better candidates available with whom we wouldn't be going into the next 30 years with our fingers crossed hoping that the second hand information about his political philosophy was in fact correct. We could, instead have been able to point to opinions issued from the bench and said "now, that decision is based on an originalist interpretation of the Constitution" or "that decision is based on liberal activism" or "that decision uses conservative opinions as its basis." As it stands now, we're reading tea leaves, hoping for good omens. That would be satisfactory for a nomination to be Attorney General, or National Security Advisor or the final Ambassador to the U.N. For a lifetime appointment to a position in which basic rights can be erased, I would have hoped for a higher criteria.
When are conservatives every going to learn to demand a justice that has a proven track record?
That's exactly what I thought. This "Max" person joined FR yesterday. I suspect we're dealing with a DU troll here who joined FR with intent to stir up trouble.
"If he fails to uphold the Constitution as is his duty, impeach him." - thoughtomator
Nice, were it politically doable - which it is not. If you really want originalist judges, you had best select them through the confirmation process.
Of course, if you only want to genuflect before President Bush, then you should by all means support Roberts' confirmation with utterly no examination of his judicial philosophy.
Trolls tend to lecture like drama queens.
Look mutton head, have you noticed how many agree with me? Or is that too subtle?
As to my conservative credentials, perhaps you ought to go over to "FREE CONSERVATIVES" and see the YEARS of posts I have made as Max Parrish.
Although it is none of your business, let me say my joining is not new. Several years ago I joined under my actual name and have posted on a few occasions.
More recently I thought to talk about this issue, and I decided that was not really private, so I rejoined with a more lucid name than "dc-zoo"...i.e. Max Parrish the same login I use at FREE CONSERVATIVES.
So after you and Rose show that you are not made of the same slander inspired stuff as DUers and liberals, investigate. Go to FREE CONSERVTIVES, get a profile, notice my seniority. Then, come back and apologize.
Yeah, I did detect that powerful stench of cheap perfume. Could be a drag queen.
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.