Posted on 09/21/2005 4:54:29 PM PDT by goldstategop
Perhaps President Bush has inadvertently nominated a true conservative to the court with this Roberts fellow. I remain skeptical based on the following facts:
Anita Hill has not stepped forward to accuse Roberts of sexual harassment.
The Democrats did not accuse Roberts of having a secret life as a racist.
We have no idea what kind of videos he rents.
Also, I'm still steamed that Bush has now dashed my dreams of an all-black Supreme Court composed of eight more Clarence Thomases. Incidentally, eight more Clarence Thomases is the only form of human cloning I would ever support.
As liberal Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in the New Yorker, Roberts was a scared choice. After Hurricane Katrina, Bush was even more scared. So when he had to pick a chief justice, he renominated the Rorschach blot.
For Christians, it's "What Would Jesus Do?" For Republicans, it's "What Would Reagan Do?" Bush doesn't have to be Reagan; he just has to consult his WWRD bracelet. If Bush had followed the WWRD guidelines, he would have nominated Antonin Scalia for the chief justiceship.
As proof, I refer you to the evidence. When Reagan had an opening for chief justice, he nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist. While liberals were preoccupied staging die-ins against Rehnquist and accusing him of chasing black people away from the polls with a stick – something they did not accuse Roberts of – Reagan slipped Scalia onto the court.
That's what Reaganesque presidents with a five-vote margin in the Senate typically do. Apart from toppling the Soviet Empire, Scalia remains Reagan's greatest triumph.
Scalia deserved the chief justiceship. He's the best man for the job. He has suffered lo these many years with Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. He believes in a sedentary judiciary. He's for judicial passivism. Scalia also would have been the first cigar-smoking, hot-blooded Italian chief justice, which I note the diversity crowd never mentions.
But most important, if Bush had nominated Scalia, liberals would have responded with their usual understated screams of genocide, and Bush could have nominated absolutely anyone to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. He also could have cut taxes, invaded Syria, and bombed North Korea and Cuba just for laughs. He could even have done something totally nuts, like enforce the immigration laws.
Even if Roberts turns out to be another Rehnquist (too much to hope for another Scalia!), we don't know that, Bush doesn't know that, and Bush has blown a golden opportunity to make Chuck Schumer the public face of the Democratic Party. A few weeks of Schumer as their spokesman, and normal Democrats would be clamoring for Howard Dean to get back on the stick. Teddy Kennedy would start showing up at hearings actually holding a double scotch.
Inasmuch as Bush must still choose a replacement for O'Connor, it's important to remember the "Sandra Day O'Connor bylaw" to the WWRD guidelines: Never appoint anyone like Sandra Day O'Connor to any court at any level.
Reagan had made a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. He didn't say anything about appointing a ninny. But back in 1981, it was slim pickings for experienced female judges. O'Connor was a terrible mistake and will forever mar Reagan's record, but at least he did it only once.
Bush has already fulfilled all his campaign promises to liberals – and then some! He said he'd be a "compassionate conservative," which liberals interpreted to mean that he would bend to their will, enact massive spending programs, and be nice to liberals. When Bush won the election, that sealed the deal. It meant the Democrats won.
Consequently, Bush has enacted massive new spending programs, obstinately refused to deal with illegal immigration, opposed all conservative Republicans in their primary races, and invited Teddy Kennedy over for movie night. He's even sent his own father to socialize with aging porn star Bill Clinton.
(Sidebar on the aging porn star: Idiot Republicans fraternizing with the Clintons has not harmed the decadent buffoon's reputation abroad. A Chinese condom manufacturer recently named one of its condoms the "Clinton," a fitting tribute to the man who had Monica Lewinsky perform oral sex on him in the Oval Office on Easter Sunday. Their advertising slogans are: "Always wear a 'Clinton' when you're getting a 'Lewinsky'!"; "I still believe in a place called the G-spot"; "Extra-thin skinned!"; "For when you really, really want to feel her pain." Note to Bush: This isn't Walter Mondale. How about sending Pops on the road with Joey Buttafuoco?)
According to my WWRD wristwatch, it's time for Bush to invade Grenada, bomb Libya, fire the air traffic controllers, and joke about launching a first strike against the Soviet Union. In lieu of that, how about nominating a conservative to O'Connor's seat on the court? It would be a bold gesture.
Replacing the Chief Justice, with a sitting member of SCOTUS is so rare, as to be almost a never done, kind of thing. Look it up.
Actually Dingy Harry did: he ridiculous criticized Judge Roberts for using the term 'amigo'. Now if that doesn't prove Judge Roberts is a 'closet racist' nothing will.
I don't read her all that regularly, but I have no truck with this particular column.
I like GW and, all circumstances being the same, I'd vote for him again. But.......overall I do not consider him a conservative. Sorry folks. I had high hopes of a Reaganesque conservative in W, but that is simply not the case.
Two major things I wanted and feel we are all owed by Bush:
1 - Agressive, proactive action against terrorism. He's done pretty well, but the will to stand up to PC by profiling and leaving old ladies and babies alone (duh?) has just not been there.
2 - Firm and aggressive policy towards appointing constitutionalist judges to the federal courts (and publicly standing up to smears by DIMS). So so. He has time to redeem himself, but I don't expect any changes from what has been done thus far. My intuition says that the best we can hope for is that we don't end up with a *more* liberal court a few years from now.
Oh, and one other thing: How about some vetos for crying out loud?
That's fine, not that important to me. I just thought of it like a business and you promote from within, but now I understand.
Hate to depress you but President Bush has been in office for 5 years and has 3 to go. Perhaps with that extra year he can still capture some of those 'missed opportunities' you say he squandered.
What'll you do, hold your breathe until you turn blue? Not vote to reelect Bush for a third term? *snicker*
Pray for W and Our Freedom Winning Troops
That's my only real problem with Saint George. He never seems to get tired of spending MY money.
The sickening part is that the Freepers who are so busy composing his hagiography would be indignant if Clinton increased the scope and spending of the federal government as much as Bush has.
LEARN A LOT OF BOTH .... ASAP!
"Lets hope he nominates another O'Conner. Yea, that was a great appointment there!"
He could do worse. He could follow his daddy's example and appoint David Souter who was recommended to George H.W. Bush by his...er...his old pal Warren Rudman. You remember Rudman, he later supported John McCain in his unsuccessful bid to unseat George W. Bush. My guess it that it was the supposed "budget hawk" Rudman (of Hart-Rudman fame) who also talked pappa Bush into his tax flip flop. And we could also discuss pappa Bush and his son's cozying up to the Clintons. Now that's smart. No, I've had all of Dubya I can take. The mea culpa over Katrina was the last straw for me. Anyone who thought that would put an end to the left blaming Bush Jr. for what the MSM insisted was a botched federal relief effort is "stuck on stupid."
BTW, as lousy as she was (and I think she was lousy), I'd still take O'Conner over Souter any day.
Is this accurate?! No way!
I can't imagine why it seemed like 6 years. I guess it's because this administration has become so dreary. I appreciate your correction but I doubt the extra year will result in much. The initiative has been lost, and I can't see Dubya regaining it. Glad to know you're an optimist however. What depresses me most is that our likely choices will be Mclame, Frist, and Guiliani.
I don't think it's quite the same thing. Reagan wasn't crucified for the sins fo the Republican PArty and raised again on the third day.
President Bush's father gave us Thomas, which Ann now wants to give Reagan credit for...instead of Reagan's "brilliant" choices of O'Connor and Kennedy. *snicker*
I'm pretty much a constitutionalist. But I do think that the modern day lifespan has completely distorted the lifetime term of a Supreme Court Justice.
From wikipedia: Average human lifespan...for the end of the 18th Century was 37. Perhaps the US as a region was slightly higher but not much. It was only 49 by 1901 in the USA.
Also the lifetime term triggers in the selection process an unhealthy focus on youthful candidates in order to get someone on the Court for 50 damn years. A stealth liberal like Souter might have already revealed his true colors to the world if nominated ten years later.
I say these incredibly long terms are un-American. The whole point of the constitution is for the public to maintain control over the government. And public service was never imagined as a lifetime career a la Sen. Byrd until the 20th century.
Plus we obviously will be looking at all sorts of geriatric issues in the near future as relates to the SCOTUS. With modern day life support technology it's sure to get "complicated".
Why not a single 15 year term? That would also take some pressure off of these hearings. Really the lifeterm means a ridiculous amount of power to placed in the hands of the few. And the lifeterms are only increasing in longevity and therefore power.
Anyway Scalia would've been fantastic...but it is a healthy form of check & balance for the Executive to appoint a new Chief Justice from outside the Court. Don't let it become to tight a club. Send someone in there to remind them they must consider the views of the outside world. I think this is why it has been done many times throughout history.
I like Reagan's brilliant choice of Scalia. But I'm sure Dubya's choice of Roberts will make Scalia look like a left-winger, especially since Leahy thinks so much of Roberts. I suppose one can hope. On the whole, I'll still take Reagan over Bush Jr.
LOL.
President Bush the younger, is as Conservative, if not more so, and has done far more Conservative things, than Reagan. Go read Southack's personal page for the list, which has been posted and reposted and re-reposted for years and updated and posted again, all over FR.
I'm not one of the drooling sycophants of the president's, here, but I am a stickler for facts over emotion and selective memory.
Reagan nominated some good and some dreadful people. You and Ann aren't allowed to ignore the dreadful ones and she shouldn't slam Roberts all the time; it's petulant and very stupid on her part!
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.