Posted on 09/13/2005 9:20:39 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Exactly.
MOst of Farah's info here comes from Lazarus, who wrote the book "Closed Chambers". Lazarus was a clerk to SCOTUS judge Harry Blackmun. The book broke a long standing tradition that clerks not write about the court in the fashion that he did. Lazarus is also a major David Souter *fan*. You want to rely on his opinion on Roberts?
I'm not worried. Anyone who can get Ted Kennedy near a stroke must not be all bad. I think Joe Farah has shown some poor judgement recently anyway, featuring new-age religious garbage.
Wow.
Had this been written by anyone other than Buchanon crony Farah, I MIGHT put some stock in it.
Other than that, no credibility at all. Might as well have been writtne by the ferret like Krugman or Frank Rich.
Breyer is not an extremist. He is more interested in interpreting the law than in advancing a particular agenda, like Ginsburg.
Let's hope that on this issue you are right. But its not like GOP Presidents have exactly inspired confidence with their SCOTUS nominees over the past 50 yrs, or even since Reagan when the extent of judicial activism and the need for good judges was apparent.
2/5; that's the record of Reagan and Bush the Elder in picking good Sup Court justices. If they had just gotten one of the O'Connor/Kennedy/Souter trifecta right, then its very possible that Roe would have been overturned in 1992 (White + Rehnquiest + Scalia + Thomas + ____ ). If they had gotten two of them right, then its likely that there wouldn't have been any other magically discovered Constitutional rights since then, nor would the use of foreign law in interpretation be given credence by the most powerful branch of govt.
No they wouldn't.
The left must use this hearing to stump for their donors.
Their donors are too small minded to consider the fact that George Bush is a liberal, and that Roberts likely is more apt to represent a "moderate" viewpoint. Thus, the left Senators must conduct an inquisition such as they are so as to satisfy their financeers.
The real issue is why aren't the Republicans asking tough questions of Roberts so as to determine if Roberts will indeed become a Souter or a Scalia.
The GOP Senators are giving Roberts a pass which is frightening to me. The only conclusion I can draw is that most GOP voters believe that any Bush nominee is automatically a conservative, which is unlikely given the fact that Bush is himself a big-government, free spending, Constitution ignoring socialist himself.
I agree.
Keep in mind most of those calling Farah foolish also believe that Bush is actually a conservative.
These people make excuses for every liberal policy that Bush has, and can rationalize Bush's acts every time he does something that contradicts the conservative agenda.
Not saying that Farah is right or wrong, just that the Bushbot choir looks more foolish all the time. Too bad they don't see it...
You may be correct that most (or many) Bush voters assume that Bush would nonimate a conservative. However, it is also possible that they believe that at least a Bush nominee would be better than ANY Clinton would put forth...
The reality is that some conservatives hoped to be conservative have been disasters, and even IF the GOP memebers asked the tough questions, the nominee would not answer them as well.
There are probably hundreds who deserve to be. I can think of a half dozen off the top of my head.
I think you need to get your eyes checked. We Bairds know a laddie when we see one, and Anne is no laddie! ;^)
Will if Ken Starr liked him, hes got ten foot pole marks all over him.. so soon we forget.. Ken Starr(and John Roberts) saved Clinton from impeachment.. The democrats know that and will confirm him.. after the obligatory huffing and puffing..
Farah has something here.. Farah DIDN'T forget.. as most here HAVE.. evidently.. malfeasance is afoote.. and Bush is not innocent..
If the story is true, then Bush I was duped by John Sununu about David Souter, who was before that duped by Warren Rudman (I think that's his name; he was a liberal NH GOP Senator). But what makes this even more infuriating is that the other judges Bush was allegedly considering have proven to be vastly superior to Souter in their lower-court jurisprudence and writings.
But anyway, I'm not so sure those days are over. If so, then why didn't the current Bush feel confident in nominating a judge with a long track record of Originalist jurisprudence and writings? Does he know something we don't that makes him sure about Roberts? How can he when he said that he didn't ask him about specific issues? I know, I know; you're not supposed to try and pin down a justice on matters that he may have to address, but you'll have to forgive me if I'm not quite convinced by Bush's proclamations that Roberts won't legislate from the bench. The same was said about Souter by the first Bush!
Why not Brown, or Pryor, or Garza? As you say, you can never know what you are getting with certainty, but at least with those three (and others), we would have some reasonable level of confidence, and the first two have already passed the not-filibuster-worthy test of the Gang of 14, which if the Dems broke should be more than enough for the Republican members to vote for the 'nuclear' option. If one of those turned out to betray us, then Bush could legitimately say that he did his best, and then we can throw up our hands in exasperation, bend over and accept the permanence of judicial supremacy and judicial activism. If Roberts betrays us, then the lack of a track record will forever be a damning mark against Bush's legacy.
I know that it would be harder to get through someone on record as saying, for example, that Roe v Wade was a garbage decision and should be overturned. But if the GOP is not willing to engage the public in a robust debate about the proper role of judges and the judiciary now, with a majority in the Senate, then they never will, and activism will forever persist, and more and more issues will be removed from the normal democratic channels that have the legitimage authority.
Having said all of this, I am cautiously optmistic about Roberts. I desperately want to believe that he is not another closet-liberal. I hope that he will soon begin a long career of conservative, originalist jurisprudence as the Chief Justice. And if he proves Bush to be a man of his word, then I will praise Bush for it. And if Bush could repeat it with two more picks (I know we'd need Stevens or Ginsberg to retire for this), then he could finally create a conservative majority, and that alone will place Bush head and shoulders above both Reagan and his father in this one critically important area.
Farah is goofier than a soup sandwich.
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.