Replies

Good post.

After an initial shock (like many Conservatives had) over the case, it has become apparent to me that his involvement was less than active.

It doesn't matter all that much, because the law was at BEST questionable as written.

One does not have to support an issue to have problems reconciling it with the Constitution. Clarence Thomas regularly rules in favor of the porn industry, yet we laud him as a strict constructionist. It has to do with how he reads the Constitution, not because of some alliance with or sympathy for the porn industry.

In the case of Roberts, we don't have a wink-and-nudge assurance from questionable Republicans like John Sununu with Souter. We don't have a wing-and-a-prayer hope that because O'Connor was an elected Republican, she'll be a Conservative. We have an impassioned and broad support from such admirable Conservative leaders as James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Mark Levin, et al. Some of them (like Dobson - who worked with him on cases) are even telling us they know what's "in his heart" based on their time working with him.

That's a far cry from the blind, hopeful quotes from right-to-lifers, et al, printed in Ann Coulter's last column about Souter.

We are dealing with a thin paper trail, granted. But we have a far different class of people willing to personally vouch for Roberts as a Conservative. That gives me a much better feeling than John Sununu's "trust me."

I also have a lot more faith in Bush's inner circle than even in Reagan's. I'd almost be willing to bet that the Bush/Rove/Gonzales team has long had a short list with 4-5 names of whom they would never need to ask certain questions because they already know the answers. Okay, it's a hunch, but tell me this isn't the most effective team we've ever had in the White House at screening people. Ashcroft, Rice, Bolton, Olson, etc. etc......I think they do their homework, even "off the record" homework.

John Roberts is no Souter in this regard: he's no stranger to the Conservatives in the White House. He's no stranger to the Pro-Life leaders; he's no stranger to hardcore Reaganites.

I like what Farah and Coulter are doing just like I liked what Buchanan was doing in 2000 - load the gun, cock it, and point it to the heads of the GOP. Then politely remind them how important certain issues/appointments are, and about that problem you've had with an itchy trigger finger.

But I find it harder to believe we have a stealth liberal this time. He has too much emphatic support, too many key people willing to vouch for him - people like James Dobson, who would give their lives for Life and Family issues. He's been in the Conservative circles for a while now; and the Senate doused him last time out of fears on his abortion views. I think that the White House knows he's a genuine Conservative, and I think the Dems know it, too. Why else resist him then like they do Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Pryor, and Pickering now?

This has little to do with my "toeing the White House line," and a whole lot to do with reading between the lines. I vote Republican almost EXCLUSIVELY for the courts, and I think this one is going to work out. The signs are just much better this time:

---He's a PRACTICING Catholic (not a secular Catholic).
---His wife RAN an actively Pro-Life Organization.
---They ADOPTED children (typically, a move of Pro-Lifers).
---He challenged Roe v. Wade - if we're to ignore his active, time-consuming work on this case for the Bush I administration, why are we to pay painstaking attention to his brief verbal advice on the Roemer case?
---He has the personal approval (not just PROFESSIONAL) of men like James Dobson, et al, as I have said before.
---He was voted DOWN by the Democrats previously out of fears on his abortion views, et al.
---It is far more likely to find a "paper trial" on activist judges, by definition. Most strict Constitutionalists will, by definition, not have much of a paper trial because they are simply APPLYING and INTERPRETING law.
---Nobody has yet to adequately point out to me ONE SINGLE HINT that this man is a liberal of ANY mold.
---He has spent nearly all of his time working for and representing Republicans and Conservative issues.

I just see no reason to oppose John Roberts right now. Not yet, at least.