Posted on 07/25/2005 6:25:32 PM PDT by slowhand520
I know we all love Ann Coulter but it seems to me she might be overreacting. If pro-lifers such as Leonard Leo are strongly supporting this guy then I don't know what else will convince you guys.
For those of you who aren't familiar with him he is executive vice president of the Federalist society and chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party.
Pro-Life Leaders Say John Roberts is a Reliable Abortion Opponent Email this article Printer friendly page by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor July 24, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, even Sandra Day O'Connor. Pro-life advocates remember these names of justices on the Supreme Court, if only because the assumption before their confirmation was that they would be reliable abortion opponents. Some pro-life advocates are worried that John Roberts will be another name on the list, but top pro-life leaders who know him well say that won't be the case.
For about a year before President Bush nominated Roberts last week to replace O'Connor on the nation's high court, the Bush administration had floated his name to gauge reaction from key supporters and activists.
Some were frustrated about not having a clearer picture of his views on any issue, including abortion, because he has issued so few decisions in his short tenure on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
However, leading pro-life advocates say they reassured others that Roberts is one of them.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice is one pro-life stalwart who says he knows and trusts Bush's first Supreme Court pick.
"I have known John Roberts for 17 years," the longtime attorney told the New York Times. "When I talk about John Roberts with the groups, it is not theoretical, it is based on firsthand, direct experience. He and I have argued cases together before the Supreme Court - you can't get more direct than that."
To get a feel for Roberts' abortion views, many have pointed to a brief he helped write for the first President Bush, which argued that the Roe v. Wade decision was flawed and should be overturned. Detractors claim the legal brief reflected the opinion of the president and not necessarily Roberts' own views.
In fact, Roberts himself, during his appeals court confirmation hearing in 2003, said legal briefs don't necessarily reflect his thinking, but he spoke in general terms and not specifically about abortion or Roe v. Wade.
Sekulow tells the times he think Roberts is a Roe opponent and that "Roberts' heart was in it."
"He doesn't argue just to argue," Sekulow said.
Leonard Leo, chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party and someone who has known Roberts for 15 years, agrees.
Even though Roberts has never ruled on an abortion issue, Leo says Roberts opinions on other hot political topics show "a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government."
That means Roberts is not likely to agree with the invented abortion right the court found in 1973, the thinking goes.
Leo also points to the Roberts' family's strong Catholic faith, his wife Jane Sullivan Roberts' longtime work with Feminists for Life, a top pro-life women's group, and he said the Roberts moved to a new church to follow the transfer of their priest -- known for his pro-life views and defending traditional Catholic teachings.
Meanwhile, Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst, credited with developing the Born Alive Infants Protect Act, a federal law Bush signed to protect babies who survive failed abortion attempts, also vouches for Roberts.
He's known the Roberts family for years and, at dinner with friends after Roberts' confirmation to the appeals court, he suggested that court nominees could turn the tables on members of the Senate Judiciary when asked about abortion by asking them if they understood the ramifications of the Roe decision.
"He didn't rule it out, but he didn't think the hearings could be turned into that kind of seminar," Arkes told the Times.
Though they didn't agree on the hearing strategy, Arkes said the implication to him was that Roberts agrees Roe is a bad Supreme Court decision with negative consequences.
Ultimately, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family says pro-life advocates should be very hopeful.
"I think that we do know a lot about Judge Roberts, from his life, from his record, from the things he has stood for," Dobson told the New York newspaper. "We believe the issues we care about will be handled carefully by this judge."
Excellent article. There is more then sufficient cause to be glad for this nomination.
And DiFi says he isn't...
As I've been saying all along, only time will tell if this guy's going to be another Souter, Scalia or Rehnquist.
It's a safe bet to say he won't be another Thomas.
I do have a tad of concern tonight , however, when Diane Fienstien after meeting with Roberts, said that she is confident he won't overturn Roe Vs Wade........Just didn't make me feel real good.....sigh
I predicted those that went into a Gonzales tizzy, certain they were going to be sold out by the Pres, ould have to oppose Bush's nomination no matter what in order t osave face.
He is recommended by a number of people whom I trust.
I think he understands not only that Roe v. Wade licenses mass slaughter, but that it was bad constitutional law, a tyrannical usurpation on the part of the judges who dreamed it up.
I think the politicians are beginning to understand, too, that its time is up. Even the media, which has supported it adamantly, is beginning to display doubts and cracks in their unified front. Even hillary clinton is pretending to come around. She understands how the voters feel about this issue.
Well you think he wants to start an all out war before he gets a chance to get nominated. He probably nodded at everything she said.
Not at all. Gonzalez would have been a disastrous mistake. Roberts looks excellent.
I hope he opposes abortion. Yet I more fervently hope he assists in returning the United States to those glorious days of yesteryear when legislators made laws and judges applied them rather than judges making laws and applying them while legislators preen and vote for pay raises for themselves.
Not to worry; they're going to find SOMETHING to hate about this guy, regardless of how hard they have to try.
I think I have more faith in the opnions of Leonard Leo )executive vice president of the Federalist society), Jay Sekulow (chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice who has known Roberts 17 years), Professor Hadley Arkes (the Born Alive Infants Protect Act), Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) all support Judge Roberts then Feinstein.
I'm cautiously optimistic.
Scalia apparently vouched for him in communications relayed to the W.H also.
But one pundit that admits she trusts this U.S. Senate (The One that made the Filibuster DEAL)! to confirm a nominee if he admits he would overturn R V W, and has no faith in this administration with a solid Judicial record, apparently dictates the terms. Not.
The man is a state's rights advocate. And I am sure you will be hearing alot about the Tenth Amendment. Remember that one? That sounds pretty conservative to me.
I don't know how many saw Brits show tonight but Mort had a very interesting comment in regard to a op-ed piece by Jonathan Turley in the LA Times.
For those who do not recall during an informal meeting with Durban it was reported that Roberts said that he might have to recluse himself over issues if they conflicted with his moral beliefs. Well it seems that Durban has disavowed the supposed comments that are attributed to Roberts
{From Turleys Op-Ed}"Judge John G. Roberts Jr. has been called the stealth nominee for the Supreme Court — a nominee specifically selected because he has few public positions on controversial issues such as abortion.
However, in a meeting last week, Roberts briefly lifted the carefully maintained curtain over his personal views. In so doing, he raised a question that could not only undermine the White House strategy for confirmation but could raise a question of his fitness to serve as the 109th Supreme Court justice.
The exchange occurred during one of Roberts' informal discussions with senators last week. According to two people who attended the meeting, Roberts was asked by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral. "
As you can see by the op-ed piece Turley was very surprised by Roberts making such a uncharacteristic mistake in his comments
MY guess on this is that someone at the meeting with Durban sandbagged Turley and misrepresented the conservation with Roberts.
I am also willing to bet that someone went to Durban and gave him a chance to correct the false interpretation.
It sure looks to me like Durban and crew were trying to muddy up the water for Roberts with conservatives.
Sekulow is a strong statement for me. The guy knows the court and knows the players.
So far the very lone voice I've heard that I usually agree with that is persistently hesistant is Ann Coulter.
I expect Senators Brownback and Coburn to get the answers we want from the hearings and then I'll make my final call.
I don't view Roberts as stealth, I doubt he would have been passed into Bush's appeals court group without strong conservative credentials.
Bush(W) renominated him after getting put into the fridge by the Dems when Clinton was President and Bush knew that his Supreme farm team likely was comprised of Appeals Court nominees.
I think President Bush was very careful in his consideration of Judge Roberts. As other posters here have said, he did not want to make the mistakes of previous administrations, including his father's, in choosing a nominee. However, the only test will be the test of time. It certainly looks like a good choice to me, and that he will be confirmed, and many people whom I admire think he's a good choice, too.
As for overturning Roe v Wade, even though I would like to see it overturned, I don't know that it will happen, whether Judge Roberts believes it should or not.
Ann's point stands. We shouldn't have to be hoping, guessing and crossing our fingers while stroking our lucky rabbit's foot. Conservatives need to demand someone that is a known originalist with a proven track record. If we don't and the Supreme Court remains controlled by judicial activists that legislate from the bench, we only have ourselves to blame.
I posted this link on another thread and since this one is not yet pocessed by Souter-itis and contains some thoughtful and reasoned posts, I'll repost it here, enjoy:
For some of you suffering from Souter-itis, you really need to read this column by Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard
Exerpt:
"Roberts is not a "stealth" nominee in the Souter mold. "We know a lot more about Roberts than was known about Souter," a Bush aide says. Roberts went through the confirmation process before, when he became a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He was endorsed by much of the Washington legal community and by colleagues from the Reagan and first Bush administrations. The president received messages through intermediaries that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia felt Roberts would be a great addition to the High Court. At least Bush aides thought the messages were from Scalia. Besides the Bush interview, Roberts had to pass another test, the Rove interview. Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, and legal counsel Harriet Miers talked to the candidates for the court at length. Rove, too, was interested in finding out if Roberts was really a conservative and would remain one on the court. He came away convinced Roberts is no Souter."
Most of the people like myself that were very uneasy about the prospect of a Gonzales nomination are cautiously optimistic about Judge Roberts.
Believe it or not, some of us make determinations about things on the merits, rather than out of reactionary hostility or blind loyalty.
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.