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.
I like you're paintings by the way.
Relax Ed, you have no reason to worry about Roberts. Mark Levin wrote the book on SCOTUS and he's fine with John Roberts. I trust his judgement as well as W's. This appointment will sway the court in our favor.
"As it stands now, we're reading tea leaves, hoping for good omens."
Just because that's what *you're* doing doesn't mean that's all GWB is doing.
This is the problem I have with a lot of whining I see. People presuming that those who are making these decisions only have the access to the same information as they. I seriously doubt that is the case.
If GWB had previously nominated someone to the SC that has disappointed conservatives, or has send a bunch of "moderates" in his other Judicial nominees to the Federal Courts, then I guess I could understand the refusal of some to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
But...but...Roberts is a conservative! And Ben Shapiro is just a kid! And Ann Coulter is a skinny-chicken-legged-drunk with an Adam's apple! And Freddy Barnes is a...well, he's not right! And NR is just being too...well, they're not right! And everyone knows Roberts is just like Scalia and Thomas because I heard it from someone who heard it from someone, and they're not like Souter's references at all! /sarc
Oh, Bush will get Roberts' nomination through. That seems a cinch now, with so many on the right and left now dancing to the WH tune. And then we will have an entire year to judge just how conservative Judge Roberts REALLY is. God only knows right now, because there ain't no paper trail to show us that I've seen and nobody has provided jack to the posts where I've asked for it.
I only hope all the folks who are so eager to buy Florida land sight unseen don't end up buying the swamp.
Not true. That was debunked in the Washington Post, though Federalist Society members have vouched for him.
Well said BUMP.
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. >>
can you name some, I'm not too familiar with the backgrounds of potential SCOTUS candidates.
Edith Hollans Brown, Emilio Garza and Samuel Alito, to name 3.
"We have a good solid conservative nominee to the supreme court and none of your baseless drivel will change that one iota."
Please feel free to produce a shred of evidence of his 'good solid conservative' personal opinion. I have been asking for anything more than what has been produced re: Souter, just a single writing that would demonstrate where Roberts personally stands on the construction of the Constitution, it could be on the commerce clause, or the necessary and proper clause, or just federalism in general. The only thing he's got out there is a couple of law review articles against environmental takings law. And that's pretty darn thin for someone who's gonna be on the SCOTUS for 30 years.
I've put my money where my mouth is--I got $50 with Always Right that Roberts WON'T vote with Scalia and Thomas 90% of the time. So how about you play nice and put up or shut up, instead of calling people names?
And you know beyond any doubt how they would decide during their careers? Barry Goldwater went from right to left as he got older, and in his day very few people would have thought that could happen.
Bottom line, there is nothing to indicate those three people would remain consistent in their decisions...any more so then Roberts.
Well, we know he is because he exercises, of course.
"Well, we know he is because he exercises, of course."
Right, right, I should have remembered that. 8^]
Hardly. Making a statement like that simply means that no one, even you, can predict how a judge will rule through the course of their life long appointment on the SC.
Hardly, if you had read even a single one of their opinions, you'd see their judicial philosophy shining through. The same cannot be said for the current nominee, unless you've got access to documents the rest of us do not.
BFD. Roberts is not a Scalia, he's a Rehnquist. Big deal. Rehnquist votes with Scalia and Thomas every time.
His wife was leader of a pro-life group. He is most likely pro-life.
Yep, and Barry Goldwater was a conservative icon. As he got older he strayed further and further to the left. Who would have guessed.
Why am I doubting your sincerity?
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.