Replies

Tell me how you get from that to Souter. This should be fascinating.

Compared to what we know about John Roberts, Souter was a dream nominee.
As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."
Wait, seriously – who is that guy on the Supreme Court and what has he done with the real David Souter?
Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.
As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.
The fact that Souter decided – like Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor and Kennedy – that he would prefer to be a Philosopher King rather than a judge once he got on the court doesn't mean you never can tell with any of these guys.

--Ann Coulter, Read My Lips: No New Liberals

I understand that libs don't care whether their representatives and "standard" bearers are mendacious, corrupt, and historically proven to be prone to commit subterfuge against America. If anything, they relish it. So what kind of Conservative suggests that the US Constitution does not protect the right to life, as Sou.. I mean, Roberts, did, as he assured libs that he would uphold stare decisis? Why signal allegiance to judicial oligarchy?

Remember Ann's column quoting Newt Gingrich: "Virtually every conservative who knows [Souter] and trusts him thinks he's a competent guy."

Yes, Newt was wrong!

The irrefutable point that Ann has made in her last two columns is that this guy really appears to be a crap-shoot. I can't call that good.

k2blader, that's why this dude mentioned Souter, not because you brought him up, but because he does appear to be another sneaky and untrustworthy lib. We don't need a stealth Scalia, a Scalia wouldn't be sneaky about his beliefs. If he were a Scalia, we would have known where he stood on the left's assault on America's founding values.

I don't think we know enough yet to be sure about Roberts. Again, that can't be a good thing. If he is a sleeper for the left, he might have "slipped" when he volunteered to support homosexual activists.

Here are some noteworthy comments by a few FR posters

Thrusher

[Roberts] fought to judicially overturn a ballot initiative voted on and approved by the citizens. That is exactly the kind of judicial activism true conservatives don't want to see on any court, much less the Supreme Court, whether or not it has anything to do with homosexuality.

StonyBurk

Roberts still has a cleaner record than Ginsburg -we will have to see if he is better than/different than any other Republican nominee to the Judiciary. (Souter and Kennedy come to mind) the problem IMO is not in the man himself so much as it is in the corrupt system divorced from the Rule of Law and ruling without fear of God nor man.

K2blader

It was voluntary work. He didn't have to do it, but he did.

Some of us would like to know why. And we'd like to know if he agrees with the SCOTUS's ruling, especially since he helped bring it about.

Ann pointing out the reasons why "Republican presidents named 'Bush' - have lost the right to say 'Trust me' when it comes to the Supreme Court nominations."

The other reasons are: Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy... Roberts would have been a fine candidate for a Senate in Democratic hands. But now we have 55 Republican seats in the Senate and the vice president to cast a deciding vote – and Son of Read-My-Lips gives us another ideological blind date.

The way that the Soviets penetrated US intelligence during the Cold War, their ideological soulmates/former comrades have done the same in academia and government. We can't rely on Republican politicians to defend against such threats, when they seem to be making the same errors "in the ring" by keeping their hands down and repeatedly getting hit by left hooks. Ann is on our corner yelling, "keep your hands up", because we're not. If America takes another blow to law and order, a self-inflicted one the in the further empowering of an alien and deleteriously corrupt ideology, it will blacken the name of George W. Bush. Americans should pray that that is not the case here.