Judge Roberts Bats A Thousand (I smell a 'RAT, do you?)

Yahoo News ^ | 14 Sept 05 | Maggie Gallagher

[1035rep]

"I hope it is that simple and that true...; but if democrats were so dumb, how is it so many have been so effective in crapping all over this country so effectively all these decades, esp. w/ regards to domestic policy? Luck?"

The courts, but that is about to change :)

[Common Tator]

That's exactly what a judge needs to do and unless you have some evidence that he will become a judicial activist for the left, insisting he's another Souter is stupid. And we have no business wishing for a judicial activist from the Right.

Yes I think Roberts is not even close to being a judicial activist from the right or left.

But those that think he will not try to undo legislation that was enacted by judges, is to mistake what he is saying as well.

If you read what Roberts said, the first impression was he would not over turn wrongly decided rulings. But if you read carefully what he said was... If the court decided A using Reason B to justify it when it should have been reason C to justify the decsion, he would not overturn. He did not say what he would do if the court decided A using reason B and he felt reasons B and C were not valid reasons at all.

I found a quite a number of clever Delphic Oracle tyep statements made by Roberts. They are likely to have very different meanings in the light of his performance on the Bench.

Biden understands.. that is why he told Roberts he was the best performing nominee in Bidens 30 years in the Senate.

[NeoCaveman]

And we have no business wishing for a judicial activist from the Right.

This line, I've heard a few times, and it bothers me. So I ask for a point of clarification:
Is strict constructionism judicial activism? And if so, have we lost the language beyond the point of recovery?

[EQAndyBuzz]

"Folks, is it just me, or does anyone else smell a 'RAT? And remember, Republicans have done this before: think Souter, Kennedy, O'Oonner ..."

The RAT you smell is the MSM getting ready to slice and dice Bush's next nominee. If the RATS vote party line against Roberts, they put themselves into a position that any Bush nominee will be voted against. This doesn't play well for the RATS politically as it reaffirms their hatred of Bush.

They have to vote for Roberts so they can shoot down the next nominee. Question becomes, will Bush choose a black woman to sit on the highest court? Because if he does, the explosion from the left will be of monumental proportions.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I did not say he would not undo wrongly decided cases. It would Mb>not</b> be judicial activism to do so but exactly if and how and when he might be ready to do so is unclear and he's not going to say so and ought not say so, indeed, cannot say so without becoming a judicial activist from the right. Carefully overturning really bad court decisions is a proper judicial function. Announcing in advance a political agenda to do so or not to do so (which is what the DimRats want him to do) is a politicization of judicial function, a form of judicial activism. That is why I wrote that we don't know if R v W will be overturned; it ought to be but it needs to be done in a proper judicial way, not a politically activist way. And unless Roberts is a liar, he seems to understand that that's the tightrope he needs to walk as a judge.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I did read carefully what he said. The initial AP report on his "abortion reply" suppressed the clever way he discussed precedent--a LifeNews story later on Tuesday gave the additional testimony. I am fully aware that he could vote to overturn R v W. based on what he said there but he did not say he would and he should not be saying in advance that he would. Whether Slow Joe Biden understands this or not, I don't know--you are probably right to say that he does. The AP writer didn't--could journalists possibly be slower on the uptake than Slow Joe "Ted Baxter" Biden?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

No, I did not mean that strict constructionism is a form of judicial activism. Roberts seems to be a very strict constructionist with a properly hghly restricted view of what a judge does--applies the laws like an umpire. This is not judicial activism. Some social conservatives seem to think that unless he announces in advance his political position on social issues he is not "one of us" and won't be the sort of judge we need. To wish that he would explicitly state outside of court, outside of a specific case, that R v W needs overturning--that's what I mean by judicial activism or politicization of the judiciary.

Now of course he did state exactly that in one of the Reagan-era memos. That was an appropriate statement given his job at the time. But it would be a totally inappropriate response to a question during his confirmation hearings. And he knows it. Why can't we get the point? It's really not all that hard. The DimWits desperately hope he might say that he's changed his mind. We hope he has not. Which is more likely--that he has changed his mind or has not? Why are we so insecure as to be terrified unless he states that he has not changed his mind? If he were to say that he has not changed his mind, he would undermine his credibility, even put himself in the position of being pressured to death by the MSM to recuse himself when the issue arises after he's confirmed. By assuring us that he has not changed his mind he would undermine his ability to do exactly what we hope he will do once on the bench. That he's smart enough to know that should be reassuring to us. That he won't tell the DimRats what they want to hear (that he's changed his mind) in order to assure his own confirmation should tell us that he probabaly has not changed his mind about R v W being bad law. Nothing he said about respecting precedent precludes him from overturning R v W because it was bad law and plenty that he said greases the skids for overturning R v W, which is why the DimRats are so frustrated. We need to let them do the squirming while we trust in what he wrote about R v W 20 years ago and assume that his silence now indicates he still thinks the same, which is exactly why he won't say he still thinks the same--if he did, he'd have rendered himself unable to do what we want him to do.

Is it really all that difficult?

I believe that true strict constructionism would overturn R v W. But a careful legal argument will have to be made with regard to precedent and stare decisis etc. if the overtuning is to be properly judicial and strict constructionist rather than a quick politically motivated act of judicial activism. The end result is the same but how one gets there makes all the difference. I want to get there but by a method that does make our side guilty of the same kind of sloppy jurisprudence that created the mess in the first place. Roberts seems to understand that, but we have to keep saying "seems" because his proper and faithful umpire-analogy for the role of a judge simply does not permit him to say in advance what his political views are. Judges are to judge on the merits of the case, not on their political views. We believe that on the merits of the case, R v W can and should be overturned. But let's be patient enough to let it be overturned by good jurisprudence. Otherwise, we gain a Pyrrhic victory.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

correction to my 107: I want to get there by a method that does not not make our side guilty.

[Proud_texan]

Well put, especially "And we have no business wishing for a judicial activist from the Right" because that would be my knee jerk desire in order to right the leftward tilt over the last 50 years just as my reaction after 9/11 was to turn the middle east into a glass parking lot. Neither is wise.

But after time to reflect two wrongs don't make a right, we need judges that are judges and then we need to elect lawmakers that understand the Constitution and the proper place of the Federal government.

I had initial misgivings about Robert's but after watching him for two days I am impressed. He is a good man.

I will not agree with all his ruling, but then I don't agree with all of Scalia's ruling but overall I pray Rodgers will be the man he appears to be.

[gobucks]

"It's you and your lack of knowledge. Maggie is a CONSERVATIVE writer and her columns appear in the N.Y. Post.

FYI...she usually writes about family matters and is a giant anti-abortion/pro-life writer; however, she does write about other things as well."

Ahhh. My lack of knowledge is getting in the way again. I hate it when that happens btw. But FR, and certain knowledgeable posters are helping me quite a bit to get it together. And I hadn't heard of Maggie before now, but the fact Yahoo picked up this conservative I found somewhat odd.

Anyway, GOOD. I hope, SINCERELY hope, you are dead right on target with this assemssment. So it sounds like you find Roberts more than agreeable, yes? (on a side note, little gb is 3 months old, 16 pounds and 25 inches long ... he and Dad are having Man time as Mrs Gb had to travel to unexpected funeral in her family. He is napping ... I just checked).

[gobucks]

"As Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a smart good man is just a smart good man."

And Freud was pretty much a major unbelievable weirdo in his personal life who had profound misfunctionality in his relationship w/ his Dad. But maybe he does know a thing or two about cigars..

It is odd about what Jesue said when someone called him 'good'... very odd, and very infrequently remarked upon or noticed.

I have noticed.

[Sensei Ern]

"If Joe Biden is the Ted Baxter of the Senate then who is the Eddie Haskell?? Diane feinstein is The Bad Seed."

I would say John McCain is the Eddie Haskell of the Senate..."That's a lovely tax cut, Mr. Bush."...He talks conservative in front of the camera when he is worried about his votes back home, but stabs our backs when he gets the chance.

Any FReeper from AZ able to tell me why he keeps getting voted in?

[gobucks]

"Why should we be surprised that their choice is to be re-elected."

You know, I really hope this outlook in your well worded post comes true. I really really do.

But I don't agree. I think that the core of Democrat nofaces at the top who own the money reins on the democrat donkey's rear end ... I think that bunch are ideologues to the soles of their feet. And I think they are incrementally patient in the extreme...

I really hope, however, that in 2009 I can tell all my friends who think I am a conspiracy nut just how dead wrong I really was....

For, if I am wrong, the House, Senate will still be GOP with no loss of seats. Bush will have gotten thru the 2nd conservative nominee on the Court, and Cheney will have smashed the left wing nut the dems nominate.

But if I am right, it is going to look really weird in 2009, b/c the dems, riding the backs of a major economic hurricane, will have retaken the House, the Senate will be at best 5050, and a 'moderate' Democrat will have been elected to the white house, like Evan Bayh.

The only thing that matters is the economy now ... if it stays pretty much muddling along like it is ... then I'm dumb.

But, 10 of 12 beige books say the housing market is cooling off, the fed is still raising rates .... and oil is, gee, over 50 dollars a barrel....

When the lower classes start getting thrown out of work, when the cul de sac security moms start having hubby underfoot, soccer mom gets ticked ...

Democrats are rubbing their hands together....; here's my outlook: if rates don't stop rising soon, and if oil doesn't start FALLING soon, then I will, unhappily, be very right.

Which is why the lack of noise about Roberts is so disturbing. I'm either REALLY off and whacko and paranoid, and that is disturbing; for I'd like to be seeing myself as sober and measured. or I am really right, and my tagline makes lots and lots of sense.

Lindsey Grahm said on the radio today that Roberts is a 'good' man. Honestly, I wish I could say that made me feel good. It didn't.

[Ann Archy]

LOL!

[gobucks]

"Biden understands.. that is why he told Roberts he was the best performing nominee in Bidens 30 years in the Senate."

I was dismayed when I heard Biden had said that....

[nopardons]

I've been reading Maggie's columns for a VERY long time. She is a staunch Conservative and you would love her columns about family; she's right up your alley!

As I've told you, many times over, assuming and jumping to conclusions, about people and things you don't know anything about, will always, ALWAYS, get you in trouble. And why Yahoo picked this column of hers up, I don't know, but they did and YOU ran over the cliff, for NO reason.

Yes, I do like Roberts and know, KNOW, from what he has said, that he is no Souter/O'Conner/squishy lefty in Conservative clothing.

O'Conner was not very well know, when Reagan nominated her. He wanted to nominate a woman and there weren't all that many women judges then, so he sent her up, more or less sight unseen.

Souter was also a nonentity, who sort of looked good on paper, but there were a few red lights, which were ignored. And you have to remember that after Bork, a nambie-pampy had to be sent to the Senate.

OTOH, Roberts is VERY well known by a whole lot of people; paper trail or no. Look who he clerked for ( REHNQUIST),who he worked for (RONALD REAGAN), who his best friends are (LUTIG, for one ), and how he has comported himself thus far. The man is a Constitutionalist, for crying out loud and that's exactly what we need, want, and was promised to us by this president.

I hope that you and the wee gb are having a lovely time together.And my condolences to all of you, on the loss, which necessitated Mrs.gb to go to a funeral.

[gobucks]

Thanks np (and now I have to look up lutig who i have never heard of..); mrs gb will be back tonight. And a good thing too. I am a great Dad, I think. But he is really young to be away from his mom for too long. I don't think he's ready for an overnight as it is..

Mrs gb has called in several times to make sure things are 'ok'. Heh, heh.... little gb has had his diapered changed, his regularly scheduled naps, and his milk. And yep, he is still alive!

[nopardons]

Oh nooooooooo...how can you not know who Lutig is? He's VERY Conservative and many here have been hoping that President Bush would nominate him to replace O'Connor, when we all knew that she was leaving. He and Roberts are very close friends and have been, for so long time.

I'm sure that you're doing just fine...with wee gb. But it's good that his mommy will be home soon.