Why 'Chief Justice Roberts' is a Mistake for Bush and Conservatives

U.S. Newswire ^ | 9/5/2005 1:08:00 PM | Eugene Delgaudio

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

so how did we get Scalia and Thomas with republican minorities in the senate?

Because the traditions of the Senate meant something even to Dims back then.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Does this mean we are going to get another Souter?

There is a 50-50 chance that "the great one", Mark Levin, would turn into a Souter on the court. It is an effect of the office that those in it want to preserve and ever-increase its power with no one to tell them they can't.

[TAdams8591]

"When Democrat presidents make nominations we know what we are getting: liberal, activist judges."

So true. I've been saying this for years. And they NEVER, EVER get it wrong.

[zendari]

"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!"

You missed a key point here.

Republican <> conservative. Take a look at who leads the judificary committee. There are NOT 50 conservatives in the Senate. Even the conservative judiciary committee is packed with the most radical leftists the Dems could find.

"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!"

Bush is who he is. He's not as conservative as many on FR or elsewhere. Why would he be more openly conservative if that isn't a reflection of his character?

Conservatism does and will win, but not to the degree that you or I expect. That will change as my generation grows and the hippie baby boomers growing up in the 60s fall out of power.

[zendari]

"So true. I've been saying this for years. And they NEVER, EVER get it wrong"

Of course not. The natural tendency for someone in power is to sieze more power through activist rulings. Even Scalia is guilty of it from time to time.

[Joe Boucher]

You hope so but that isnm't necessarily true, that Mr. Roberts is a true conservative. And yes I saw how conservatively the children that the N.Y. Times hoped to exploit were dressed as was Mrs. Roberts.
I just like to wear my feelings in the open and out front for everyone to see.

[George W. Bush]

And yes I saw how conservatively the children that the N.Y. Times hoped to exploit were dressed as was Mrs. Roberts.

I never did grasp how you can dress tykes politically. And the missus was modestly dressed in bright color but hardly prudish. But then, I have no fashion sense. That little boy was just fun to watch, unlike so many dull official announcements. Well, Karl does earn his pay.

[Aetius]

I guess what I am really getting at is turnout. Virtually all leftist victories in the national culture war, and regionally in red states, have come through the the Courts. Whether its gay marriage/civil unions, abortion, Establishment Clause abuse, or whatever, cultural conservatives have seen their success at the ballot box be wiped out by judges.

Seeing as how the other two, allegedly coequal branches have accepted judicial supremacy, then the only true front in the culture war is the nomination of SCOTUS judges. If Reagan and Bush I had done better than a terrible 2/5 in this regard, then it would already be over (though of course the survival of the idea of judicial supremacy would mean that it coud always come back with a fury at any time). They could have afforded one horrible mistake, but not the three they gave us. If they'd simply got 3/5 then we'd be on the verge now of finally righting the ship with the O'Connor resignation.

But anyway, my point is that I do believe that if Roberts (and the other imminent pick) do not turn out to be the Scalia/Thomas type that Bush promised, and instead turn out to be a Kennedy/O'Connor/Souter type, then it will significantly hurt turnout because it will reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness on the base. And they'd be justified in feeling that way.

[Constitution Restoration Act]

That sentiment has been stated before:

 

http://www.policyreview.org/may97/thtruth.html

 

"Why bother voting when the judiciary can knock down laws like so many bowling pins?"

 

But folk have continued to vote, and vote, and vote.

 

HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL.

 

There will always be a younger generation that has no recollection of past abuses. And there will always be RINOs who will justify/excuse/make the case that a future case would be different next time, if Roberts (and the other imminent pick) become Souter/O'Conner.

 

 

[rcocean]

Great Post!

Bush promised to appoint Scalia's - and he should keep his promise.

If the Dems and RINOs don't like it, Tough.

These are lifetime appointments. If we want a true conservative court, we're going to have to FIGHT for it.

[deport]

Would U.S. Newswire even mentioned Eugene's name and organization had it issued a press release supporting Roberts?

---

You realize US Newswire is a hire gun don'tcha?.. For a fee [$595 for 400 words] they'll distribute over the national news circuit. Lesser fees get you on smaller news circuits.

So to answer your question.... No, Eugene's name would never have made it without the cash. And the circuits most likely would never have picked him up no matter what he said. jmo of course.

[Aetius]

You're probably right. I know that I would be extremely disheartend and disappointed and upset if Bush has screwed us with Roberts like Reagan did with O'Connor and Kennedy and Bush the Elder did with Souter. But at the same time, I just don't think I could live with myself if I didn't cast a vote against Hillary in 08.

But if it is close; if a few important states have a close race, then just the slightest dampening of enthusiasm from the base could prove fatal for the GOP.

The reason I think this time may be different is because I think there is no longer any excuses for Republican presidents in picking Sup Court justices. We have seen Reagan and Bush the Elder make terrible choices, but it was done in a time before the internet and before there was much on the conservative side to counteract (at least in part) the left's demagogic activist groups and their allies in the mainstream media. And now the GOP once again has a majority in the Senate, and with the 'Gang of 14's approval of Pryor, Brown, and Rogers, there is no justification for deeming equally conservative SCOTUS picks extraordinary, and thus prone to a filibuster.

Again, this time there are no excuses outside of a genuine conservative turning left once on the court. And while this threat can never be fully done away with, it can be lessened by picking a justice with a track record of conservative/originalist jurisprudence.

Hopefully of course, we will not ever have to find out. Hopefully Roberts will prove that Bush did not make a huge mistake.

[lainde]

bttt