Posted on 09/05/2005 2:27:28 PM PDT by Constitution Restoration Act
To: OpEd Editor
Contact: Eugene Delgaudio, 703-901-2247
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is an op-ed by Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate of the United States:
Why "Chief Justice Roberts" is a Mistake for Bush and Conservatives (REVISED for Chief Justice Appointment)
By Eugene Delgaudio
As the Roberts confirmation hearings loom, the vast majority of the conservative movement has lined up squarely behind the nominee. Once again they seem to blindly trust a Republican president to appoint an originalist to the Court. However, Public Advocate of the United States, the national pro-family group I lead, has taken the difficult (but necessary) step of opposing his nomination to the Court and especially to the position of Chief Justice.
The problem with Roberts is not that his work on behalf of the homosexual lobby in the Romer case proves that he is going to be another Souter - it's that it doesn't prove he's not going to be.
Consider the Clinton appointees. Was there any doubt as to what kind of justice liberal ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be? When Clinton later appointed former Ted Kennedy staffer, Stephen Breyer, did anyone honestly think that he might be a Scalia in Souter clothing? When Democrat presidents make nominations we know what we are getting: liberal, activist judges.
However, when a Republican president is making the calls, buyers beware! Of the nine justices currently serving on the Court, seven were Republican appointees. Of these, three have been reliable originalists who faithfully interpret the meaning of the Constitution in a manner consistent with the text. The other four are activists who creatively manipulate the Constitution to fit their political agendas.
Conservatives won't fight for good nominees and won't stand up against poor or unproven nominees. When the left viciously attacked conservatives Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg, conservatives failed the challenge and the Ted Kennedys of the world bullied us into Anthony Kennedy, who has since written opinions citing foreign law in order to overturn democratically enacted American laws.
When the elder Bush appointed a "stealth candidate" known for his calm and inoffensive demeanor, liberals were left without a target. Oh, the genius of the Bush Administration. Sure enough David Souter sailed through the confirmation process and took his life-long seat on the Court.
In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "DOH!"
Sadly, the examples don't stop there. The current dean of the activists, John Paul Stevens was a Ford appointee. And it was Ronald Reagan who appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, whose swing vote has provided us with dazzling jurisprudence like "well you can show the Ten Commandments outside, but put it under air conditioning and you have yourself a First Amendment violation."
Nixon batted .333 in Supreme Court appointments, Ford .000, Reagan .333 (.500 if you include the promotion to Rehnquist), George H.W. Bush .500, and Bill Clinton a solid 1.000… for the activist team of course.
Our failure to demand originalists has cost us dearly. It is because of Republican appointees that Roe v. Wade is still "settled law" (Casey), that states can no longer pass laws to protect family values (Romer and Lawrence), that foreign laws have legal standing to override American laws (Lawrence and Roper), and that people can view online virtual child pornography and do so in public libraries (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and U.S. v. American Library Association).
Now George W. Bush gets his turn at the plate and has chosen Judge John Roberts. While we were initially optimistic about the Roberts nomination, it soon became clear that his credentials as a conservative were not as impeccable as we were first lead to believe.
In 1996, as a partner in the D.C. law firm, Hogan and Hartson, Roberts was complicit in the successful bid to overturn the democratically adopted law in Colorado that protected families from courts unilaterally enacting the agenda of the radical homosexual lobby from the bench. What is worse is that this supposed originalist volunteered to do the work for free!
When the L.A. Times made this known, neither Roberts nor the White House had an acceptable explanation. In order to keep conservatives on board and in line we were given excuses like "he only helped them for a few hours," or "he was a partner and was expected to help with all the firm's appellate litigation." Yet the Times confirmed that he was never forced to take on the pro bono work and that he volunteered to do it of his own volition, which Roberts never refuted.
Neither this nor the other revelations that challenge his conservative credentials prove that Roberts will be an activist. However, it is more essential then ever that the new Chief Justice be a proven originalist who will stand up to the increasingly activist majority.
Why go with another "stealth candidate" with little track record on important issues as a judge who may have an easy confirmation fight, when there are the Edith Joneses, Michael Luttigs, and Samuel Alitos of the world who have already proven themselves on the bench and are worth fighting for?
While most conservative leaders continue to be "team players" after being asked by their friends in the White House to trust the administration, the new Chief Justice could serve as the figurehead for the Court for the next three decades. Public Advocate has decided that this is just too important. Enough is enough.
If the National Organization for Women would have discovered that Breyer had done pro bono work for pro-lifers in Casey, do we really think that they would have shut up and rolled over?
It is past time that conservatives took a couple pages from our opponent's playbook and choose to fight. We cannot simply rely on trust alone for a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The burden is on Roberts and the White House to prove that he is an originalist, not on groups like Public Advocate to prove he's not.
Now that the nomination has been made, the burden rests with Senators and the American public. It is essential that conservatives demand that their Senators ask Roberts the tough questions plaguing this nomination before deciding to throw their support behind the nominee.
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
---
Eugene Delgaudio is the President of Public Advocate of the United States, a nationwide pro-family group based in Northern Virginia that has been active in the conservative movement for over twenty-five years. He lives in Sterling, Virginia with his wife and children.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
Northeastern attitudes are very different from those in the rest of the country. It's not a slam, it's an observation.
Examples? My experience is that people are people no matter where you go. A middle class Northeasterner has more in common with a middle class Californian than someone who lives in Beverly Hills and vice versa. I see more differences between economic strata than I do geographically.
Two words to separate a northeastern Republican from one in say, Wyoming: George Pataki. Pataki could get elected governor of any state in the northeast, but not in Wyoming or Nebraska or Texas, as examples. If you look at the political culture of the northeast and compare it with the rest of the US (excepting California and Florida) you'll understand what I mean. Bush is no conservative....he said he was a "uniter, not a divider" and a "compassionate conservative." What are we to infer from that? That conservatism is both divisive and not compassionate. No true Texan would have said that, but someone with a basically northeastern view of politics would. Yes, there are some true conservatives in the northeast, I know a few, but by and large, conservatives there are viewed as aberrant and seem to apologize for their beliefs. Basically, look at Bush's cabinet appointments.....all touted as being "strong conservatives" BY THE LIBS IN THE MEDIA. Powell was a good man and a good soldier, but self admittedly was no conservative. Rice is an intelligent woman, but is as conservative as Mitt Romney, which is to say she isn't. Dick Cheney is in an office that isn't worth a bucket of warm spit (to paraphrase "Cactus Jack" Garner), so if he's at all conservative, it sure doesn't show. Rumsfeld seems bent on downsizing the military to ridiculous levels in time of war....is THAT what a conservative would do????
Tax cuts are all well and good, but my registered Democrat grandmother could do that. If Bush wanted to show he was a true conservative, and not someone with a northeastern approach hidden by a Texas drawl, he'd nominate someone with a SERIOUS record of being an originalist to the SCOTUS, and NOT a "stealth" candidate. We've been burned by stealth candidates before.....and as Mr. Scott once said, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." We've been fooled before (Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, O'Connor). Out of six appointments by Republican presidents, only TWO...TWO! have been genuine conservatives, three if you count Robert Bork, and look what the libs did to him. A principaled conservative has to be ready to fight for what he believes in....not tuck his tail between his legs and lick his master's hand like a whipped dog as moderates do. This Roberts nomination looks a lot like a whipped dog to me. If Bush had any principles, he would have nominated an OPEN conservative to this court. I don't care how many conservatives he's placed in appelate courts, unless he moves them into the majors, he's just talking the talk and not walking the walk. I'd expect that from a Pataki or a Weld or a Giuliani....not from someone who supposedly is a "Texas conservative." In Bush's case, the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree: Gutsy overseas, a wuss at home. Just like his northeastern dad.
Oh man, we disagree on so many points that I barely know where to begin. Suffice it to say that if Bush and his cabinet aren't conservative enough for you, then I question your definition of conservatism. I'm extremely happy with the president and his cabinet level appointments.
Good catch. I wonder what he was banned for under his previous Freeper name?
by Joe Boucher (an enemy of islam)
Those who value the Constitution must all be enemies of islam.
A religion? Yes. But admirable? No. It is filled with lies and hate. Islam declares it ok to lie to an infidel. Putting their hand on the Koran and swearing to tell the truth means nothing. They can lie in a court of infidels and according to their law, not be perjurious (perjury).
Islam is to be despised and hopefully conquered.
And the horse they rode in on.
"Tax cuts are all well and good, but my registered Democrat grandmother could do that. If Bush wanted to show he was a true conservative, and not someone with a northeastern approach hidden by a Texas drawl, he'd nominate someone with a SERIOUS record of being an originalist to the SCOTUS, and NOT a "stealth" candidate."
And how do you push a Bork through the Senate?
If Bush was as conservative as you wanted to be he would never have been twice elected President in a national election.
"A male Janet Reno"
Isn't that redundant?
You get someone like Bork through by BEHAVING LIKE THE MAJORITY. You treat the Democraps the way they always treated the Republicans when the Republicans were in the minority....tell the Dems they can shut up and take it, or they can take it and shut up, it's their choice. They HAVE NO SAY IN WHO GETS CONFIRMED!
And as for conservatism, honestly presented it always wins. Look at Reagan. Reagan suited me just fine....conservative and made no bones about it. He knew how to steamroller the Dims, and easily could have gotten Bork confirmed if the rest of the Republicans hadn't gotten a case of white liver! Maybe if Bush had been more openly conservative, he might have won bigger in 2000, and repeated Reagan's 1984 landslide....ever considered that? Conservatism is NOT something to be ashamed of!
Lord, spare me from weak-kneed moderates and stealth liberals.....
Just a hunch. But judgning Roberts' demeanor and the way his children were dressed at the original nomination, I think it's unlikely Mr. Roberts is in the liberal/Souter mode. Just an observation. We gotta trust President Bush.
I did a search with the names "Kent Anthony" and "George Bush." I got 2 hits neither of which were your writing. Looks like you don't post much politics anywhere on the Internet under YOUR name. Yet you must have posted at least 20 posts since you signed up yesterday. I was going to count the posts but your butt has already been banned and your posts removed.
Have a nice day.
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.