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