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.
.....BTTT....
BTTT?
He's qualified, and he's the President's choice. Unless there is unethical or criminal behavior in his past (highly unlikely), he should be confirmed. We'll just have to wait and see whether it was a good choice or not.
Two words, Trojan Horse
reverse psychology methinks. Stop hating him and pretend he is good and let the conservatives turn on him.
As I've said before, I don't believe you can trust much of what people say during the confirmation process, because everyone has an agenda to push rather than the truth to tell. One tool liberals will use is to try to divide and weaken conservative support.
I hope Roberts is a good pick. He has had some good recommendations from social conservative and pro-life leaders since his name was announced, although they could be mistaken in him. Only time will tell.
FYI.
Wishful thinking, lefty agitprop and psy-ops, trying to polish the turd that W threw in their punchbowl. Roberts will work to undo so much that the left has accomplished. For the next 30 years. BTW, welcome to FR. This is a special place...
The left is going to "Play Nice" on this nominee and then, having been nice guys, will be AGHAST at the next two or three nominees Bush picks and go back to being ridiculousy vicious.
It's just a ploy.
Is it or is it not true that he was a member of the Federalist Society?
BTTT means "bump to the top". It marks the thread and moves it to the top of most recent replies. Do a search for "Lexicon" and it will reveal a lot of FR phrases...
", trying to polish the turd that W threw in their punchbowl."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! line of the day
Who cares what they think?
Cripes. Has the man ever cracked open a copy of The United States Constitution? Right now that's all I want.
One of Coulter's assertions was, just because people on the left hated him, doesn't mean he's a good choice. So just because people on the left don't hate him, it doesn't mean he's a bad choice.
He is a member of the federalist society. That is good news. He is almost certainly pro-life. The real problem is his temperment.
There is a belief that he is a 'minimalist' who does not like to advocate abstract principle, but likes narrow reasoning that nibbles at more extreme liberal ideas. He is not a Scalia or a Thomas, he is "AT MOST" a Rehnquist and "NO WORSE" than O'Connor. Most likely he's halfway between.
He was a safe "B" pick that will undermine any future selection from the A team: Luttig, Brown, Owen, Jones, Olson, et. al.
Bush blew it, and reasonable liberal mags like New Republic know it.
Although to be fair, as an Appellate judge he'd have to be respectful of Supreme Court precedent. There is very little in his record to indicate his judicial philosophy one way or the other and what little there is can be somewhat contradictory. The orgasm some on the Right are having is mostly wishful thinking, I believe. I think there were much better candidates for the position about whom we wouldn't be having these doubts.
This is not a favourable sign. Let's not get burned again.
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.