Posted on 08/04/2005 4:07:48 PM PDT by churchillbuff
“Who is John G. Roberts Jr., really?” asks freelance journalist Paul Green in a recent column printed on GodSpy.com. And that, it seems, is precisely the same question forming on more and more lips these days, and not just those of liberals and Democrats.
“There’s a lot of people saying things about [Roberts], negative and positive,” observed American Life League President Judi Brown, “and frankly, I’ve read everything that he’s said, and I’m very confused about where he stands. I have no idea.”
Although many conservatives have come out lauding president Bush for what many have called “brilliant” politicizing, in nominating a “stealth” candidate who Democrats can’t seem to find a spot of dirt on, an increasing number of conservatives are giving voice to a nagging discomfiture with the choice. As Robert’s continues to employ his lawyerly avoid-all-questions, give-no-answers tactics, many conservatives are questioning what appears to be a deliberate and unnecessary downplaying of Robert’s purported conservatism by the Bush administration. American Values director Gary Bauer says the "stealth strategy" the White House is using try to hide Judge Roberts conservativism is "exactly the wrong way to go."
Popular journalist Anne Coulter has largely led the posse of noncommittal skeptics. “Let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial,” said Coulter in a July 20th column. “That’s just unnatural…It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart, and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.”
Coulter continued her critique of Bush’s nomination saying, “If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!”
And there is no doubt that Roberts is pretty much a blank slate. Although most of his jurisprudential language mirrors that of a true constructionist and conservative, he has been muddying the waters in the last few days. Besides distancing himself from any involvement with the constructionist Federalist Society, Roberts has come out strongly in support of Supreme Court “precedent”, a topic of great interest since Roe V. Wade has become the central gauge of this particular Court nomination.
“Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system,” said Roberts, in statements obviously constructed to appease his leftist critics who believe that Roberts would overturn Roe V. Wade if confirmed.
Not only that, worrisome information has come to the surface that while working with the Horgan & Hartson law firm, Roberts performed pro bono work for gay rights activists, offering his legal expertise in a Supreme Court case and ultimately assisting the gay rights movement to achieve what Suzanne Goldberg, a lawyer with a gay-rights legal service, called the “single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement.”
“John Roberts…was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue,” said Jean Dubofsky, the lead lawyer for the gay rights activists in that court case.
Of course the Los Angeles Times points out that this is perfectly in character for Roberts, who had also signed briefs arguing for the overturn of Roe V. Wade in his capacity as a lawyer for the initial Bush administration. “Roberts’ work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession:” said the Times, “to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.” Roberts has continually distanced himself from any written legal opinions given in his capacity as a lawyer arguing the position of his client.
The real cause for concern, according to a number of commentators, is that other “stealth” candidates nominated by Republican administrations, most notably Justice David Souter, have developed voting records distinctly liberal and anti-life. “Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever,” said Coulter in a column titled “Souter in Roberts’ Clothing”.
Most of the professed skeptics, however, including Coulter, add to their remarks the caveat that by all accounts Roberts actually may turn out to be everything that conservatives wish him to be; but right now, it’s anybody’s guess.
The Bush administration is making a mistake if they think Roberts won't need support from the conservative grassroots. If we don't get into this game, it will be left up to the liberal establishment, who will end up trashing him and maybe beating him if we sit on our rear ends.
If Robert's turns out to be another Souter, the GOP won't be forgiven too easily.
They would (deservedly) pay a price in 2006 and 2008.
Conservatives seem to be afraid we might win one.
Bush made a mistake, in my mind, by not nominating a clear conservative -- somebody whose track record was obvious, instead of a "stealth candidate" Choosing a "stealth" candidate is a sign of weakness, a sign that you don't have the courage of conservative convictions because you're afraid to have a debate on them.
I've been totally supportive of Roberts up to this point, but if he did "pro-bono" work for gay rights, that could easily change my opinion.
No, we're afraid that we've got another Souter. That won't be a "win," even if he gets confirmed.
Roberts is a stealth candidate because Bush must not think that the Republicans in the Senate have the 'nards to get a true practicing conservative confirmed. If Roberts turns out not to be pro-life and staunchly conservative, I may be looking for a third party to join, after having voted straight Republican since 1972.
MAybe, but most Bushbots will downplay the matter, and Rush will say, in so many words, "nothing to see here, let's move on and make fun of Hillary and Ted Kennedy"
please do
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Rush sure didn't sound convincing today trying to explain away Roberts' (pro-bono) work with the Homofascists.
It seems like abortion is the only care on the minds of too many people in this country, as the measure of the acceptability of a new SCOTUS justice. It would behoove this country, if it worried more about the Constitution, and the true mandate of the court, upon which the entire future of the American Republic rests. At the same time, ANY CANDIDATE could come in and participate in the overturning of R vs. W. So, if critical thinking is the mark, the stability and dedication of a justice to supporting and protecting the Constitution, and upholding and applying written laws of the U.S. only, and not ever supporting any form of legislation from the bench -- or courts making laws -- however you might want to call it, is really the key focus of candidate selection.
The largest looming threat in this country is the threat that the SCOTUS will AGAIN legislate from the bench, and slam the Constitution, AS IT DID relative to property ownership of those folks in Connecticut. Therein lies the classic example of what will bring down our Republic, our freedoms, and our liberties. Mark my words.
FReepers continue to fall for these lame divide-and-conquer tactics.
Because the Romer decision was unconstitutional -- it essentially says the federal constitution forces you to hire or rent to somebody who's flouting an alternative lifestyle. It also laid the groundwork for court-imposed gay marriage. Hey, thanks a lot, John Roberts!
The idiot Republicans need to realize that 55 is 11 more than 44, and that it shouldn't matter what a single Democrat thinks of any nominee.
Do you think for one second that if a Dem President nominated a Judge with such a huge advantage in the Senate, that they would care what the minority party thought of that candidate?
He would (rightly) tell them to go jump in a lake.
Go ahead and throw Roberts under the bus. Then you will get a Souter. One thing conservatives are very good at is eating their own.
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.