If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
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/
The net impact -- especially if conservatives blindly trust Bush and continue to have their heads up their asses -- will be a court that could actually become more liberal or stay as left of center as it presently is for decades.
By the way, I really want McConnell on the court. The Hispanic and the second woman will just have to wait. But what I want, is not what I get much either. Quite irritating actually.
"And look who's doing it: the "I'm gonna quiters."
They promise and promise and promise...
I'll give one thing to Pat Buchanan. He promised to leave and then he actually did it."
Yeah, wasn't that great. Let's purge all those "crazy" social conservatives from the Republican party - then we can really win all those swing states like Ohio and Florida in the next election. All those bible thumpers are just a bunch of anti-semities like Pat Buchanaan.
Susan Collins for President!
/sarcasm off/
Isn't that redundant?
"Social" conservatives? Ha! With his trade views, Buchanan is more of a "socialist" conservative.
That's true. GWB would never nominate anyone like William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, etc... Oh wait! He did nominate them, didn't he? Well, I guess that just proves that those judges are really liberals masking themselves as conservatives! [/sarcasm]
Buchanan is more of a "socialist" conservative.
Kind of like the nazis.
<whistling>
Try nominating them to a seat where he would actually have to fight. Appelate court judges aren't worth spending political capital on, SCUS justices are. Let him nominate Pryor or Brown to the SCUS and then your sarcasm will be warranted.
Well, if you don't think it would be a disaster if Roberts were turned down in the Senate, you must be living in la la land. He's the best hope conservatives have at this time. Do you honestly think conservatives could get anyone more conservative than Roberts on the Court? If you do then you are not thinking straight.
Ok, so if Bill Clinton batted a 1.000 for the activists, wouldn't that mean that Ford batted a .000 for the activists, as in, he appointed no activists to the bench? There seems to be a shift in thought midway through this sentence that mangles the meaning of the analogy pretty thoroughly.
"The Chief Justice is not "in charge" of the Supremes."
Diana Ross was.
The author thinks that working for Ted Kennedy automatically makes you a liberal, but working for Reagan doesn't automatically make you a conservative. That's seems like a double standard to me.
Third party losers don't have any say in governing.
Souter was a Northeasterner through and through.
as long as it makes the libs irate then it's the right choice
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
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.