Confirm Roberts(The Left Angeles Times no less!)

The Los Angeles Times(no less) ^ | September 20, 2005 | staff

[kellynla]

IT WILL BE A DAMNING INDICTMENT of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists.

Most Democrats have not indicated how they will vote later this week in the Judiciary Committee, or subsequently on the Senate floor. The angst expressed by some senators who feel caught between the pressure of liberal interest groups and their own impression of Roberts is comically overwrought. "I for one have woken up in the middle of the night thinking about it, being unsure how to vote," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).

One reason Democratic senators are struggling to reach a verdict on the Roberts nomination is that President Bush has yet to announce his nominee for the second vacancy on the court. They are trying to figure out how their vote on Roberts will influence Bush's next choice. This is silly; Roberts ought to be considered on his own merits. But even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game, voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage. If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over Roberts.

[republicofdavis]

"Let's see, Ann Coulter is against him and the Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times are for him."

Is this your idea of analysis? Don't you think you should have included all the conservatives who are for him?

[republicofdavis]

"I hear Roberts will be more like Kennedy than Souter."

From whom? Anybody you heard that from is talking out of their hat.

[republicofdavis]

"No, more like Roberts will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc."

Nonsense. He's already voted in a way that would limit congressional use of the Commerce Clause. Why do you ignore that?

[RKV]

Because he said so in his testimony to the Senate during his recent confirmation hearings. That's why.

[republicofdavis]

Right. He said "I will support the same agenda that has been in place before the court - unlimited commerce power, soft on the Bill of Rights, etc."

C'mon what did he really say? And again, why ignore his actual record?

[RKV]

read my prior message or don't expect a reply

[montag813]

Ok, the L.A. Times is a bridge too far...time to pull Roberts.

[RKV]

http://instapundit.com/archives/025576.php

SCHUMER: OK. Let me ask you, then, this hypothetical: And that is that it came to our attention, Congress', through a relatively and inexpensive, simple process, individuals were now able to clone certain species of animals, maybe an arroyo toad. Didn't pass over state lines; you could somehow do it without doing any of that. Under the commerce clause, can Congress pass a law banning even noncommercial cloning?

ROBERTS: I appreciate it's a hypothetical, and you will as well, so I don't mean to be giving bindings opinions. But it would seem to me that Congress can make a determination that this is an activity, if allowed to be pursued, that is going to have effects on interstate commerce. Obviously if you were successful in cloning an animal, that's not going to be simply a local phenomenon. That's going to be something people are going to...

SCHUMER: We can leave it at that. That's a good answer, as far as I am concerned.

As I said, his commerce clause jurisprudence is mainstream, and therefore questionable. If he gets along with Schumer, then he is not a conservative. GOT IT?

[republicofdavis]

"read my prior message or don't expect a reply"

Wow, how arrogant you are.

All right I read your prior message. Not sure what I'm supposed to take from it. You said, in a nutshell, that Roberts said he would support unlimited commerce clause power and less protection under the bill of rights. I challenged you factually, both that he said such things and that his record led to an inference of the opposite.

Your most erudite response was "because he said so." I challenged you. You said read the prior post. I did. It's non-responsive.

So will I be lucky enough to have the favor of a reply since I followed your order?

[republicofdavis]

Wait is your #48 the prior response I'm supposed to read? That's after this post.

[RKV]

You spam this thread then don't answer and then have the gall to tell me I am the one who is arrogant. Get real.

[republicofdavis]

"As I said, his commerce clause jurisprudence is mainstream, and therefore questionable. If he gets along with Schumer, then he is not a conservative. GOT IT?"

Ah, I get it. You make more of the ritual of the Senate Confirmation Hearings than you do of the man's ACTUAL opinions on almost the exact same issue. And you're also of the school that if Schumer says something nice about someone they're automatically to be tossed overboard. I assume you said the same thing when ever a lib said anything nice about Reagan, i.e. Tip O'Neill and many others I could name.

UNDERSTAND! Hey, I can capitalize, too!

[RKV]

So the guy says one thing to the committee and writes his opinions another way, is that what you mean?

[republicofdavis]

"You spam this thread then don't answer and then have the gall to tell me I am the one who is arrogant. Get real."

What are you talking about? In what way did I "spam" the thread? By replying to posts? I thought that what we did? What did I not answer? You must live in Bizarro World. Every question you've posed I've made an effort to offer a response. It is you who has been non-responsive, ordering me to read a prior post that said nothing. What is it with you? Your style of argument seems to be common among Roberts' detractors.

[Paulus Invictus]

"Bush has any cajones." Well, he has enough Spanish to know that the word is spelled cojones. ( Spanish language police in action again)

[kellynla]

I think the Lefties & the MSM are holding their fire until the next candidate.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Looks like a Souter or a Kennedy is what we're going to get, because if the left thought Roberts was a Thomas or Scalia, they'd be going all out to destroy him. This is NOT a good thing.

They opposed Thomas, but Scalia was confirmed unanimously (or almost).

[republicofdavis]

"So the guy says one thing to the committee and writes his opinions another way, is that what you mean?"

I guess that's one way to look at it. I look at it this way: his opinions, the things that really matter, speak for themselves. His statements in the dog and pony show, of no binding authority, those don't bother me so much. It's so full of hypotheticals and what might happen that it really means nothing. The toad case shows his actual thoughts. I, Scalia, Thomas, and I assume you, would all agree with his reasoning in that opinion. Why not accept that?

[RKV]

You are the one who answered at least three different posts in a row - thats headed toward spamming in my opinion. BTW your style of argument is the same as the folks who gave us Souter - in two words "trust me." We have seen how poorly that turned out. Personally I like Ronald Reagan's formulation much better - "trust, but verify." Based on the hearings verification has failed. Roberts has been on the federal bench two years (since June of 2003). That is NOT a long track record.

[republicofdavis]

"You are the one who answered at least three different posts in a row - thats headed toward spamming in my opinion."

I did not know it was improper to answer any certain number of posts in a row. I only now became aware of the thread. You call it spamming, I call it engaging in dialogue.

"BTW your style of argument is the same as the folks who gave us Souter - in two words "trust me." "

My "style of argument" has nothing to do with my support for Roberts. My support for Roberts has been expressed many times and I will not repeat it all here. I have disagreed with almost every attack against him, particularly the one that there's no evidence of his judicial philosophy. You folks just ignore it.

"Based on the hearings verification has failed."

I disagree. I and most conservatives believe he was superb and can't wait until he is installed on the bench.

"Roberts has been on the federal bench two years (since June of 2003). That is NOT a long track record."

It's twice as long as Thomas'. Were you as adamant against him?