Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry fFynt's attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?
Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?
Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights.”
It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.
The only way a supreme court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.
It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.
I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend the Party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism too.
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.
It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.
If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last ten!
We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?
Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.
Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.
As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights –liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.
Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times — the enemy’s own playbook! — that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.
That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.
The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.
And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
The theme response to no-real Catholics and/or real conservative Protestants this must be:
U.S. Constitution, Article. VI, Clause 3:
" . . . and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Pretty good idea from a freemason, that.
Justice Ginsburg is rather friendly with Justice Scalia and his wife. So, by your criteria, I can feel confident that Justice Ginsburg will be a reliable member of the originalists on the Court?
"I agree with Ann 100%. I won't pop the corks over this nomination because I don't find anything to celebrate over."
I agree. This guy was not on any of the conservatives "dream list". No one talked about him and hoped he would be the candidate. Yet as soon as he was named virtually all the freepers were wildly supporting him. I would have preferred for Bush to name a wild-eyed dyed in the wool conservative and gone through a hellacious confirmation process and gotten a sure thing. I hope Bush didn't screwed this up royal like his daddy.
This article is not one of her finest moments.
Rush up in about an hour...
I also look forward to Steyn's take.
She may be hard to please but she sure has one heluva long neck.
Are you SURE he is a member of the Federalist Society?
Dear God, I hope this is true.
Write in haste, repent at leisure.
Normally, Ann makes some good points, but I think she can't see the forest for the trees in this case.
Somewhere else on this forum I read a theory that's plausible - this may well have been a move/deal designed to get Rehnquist's real replacement in before he retires.
I have no doubt Roberts will do well and be a conservative. Ann needs to think this through a bit more before being rash.
I agree with Ann - - Roberts makes me a little nervous. One more disgraceful scumbag like Souter could do irreparable damage to the nation. It is simply not worth taking a chance.
Unfortunately, this is not a valid point as to what the attorney's beliefs are. What an attorney argues before the court representing a client is the client's position not the attorney's. Look more to the attorney's extra-judicial statements and actions to gauge his/her's true beliefs. In this sense, this is where I believe Anne is correct. The stealth-candidates who have said nothing openly so are not controversial are truly unknown quantities. To look at who they have represented or worked with is not always a good indicator and leads to Souteresque picks.
Personally, I think the Republicans should have used the nuclear option. My hope is that the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot on this one. If they go overboard, filibuster, and prevent this nomination, then the Republicans may actually grow some cojones and change the rules on the grounds that this was not an extraordinary circumstance. If that happens, then you will see some really outspoken well-known conservatives going through. I think Rehnqust has not announced his retirement waiting to see what happens here. If he feels confident that Bush will be able to get a true conservative confirmed, he will step down.
Update III: We are happy campers here. He is a strong conservative, a member of the Federalist society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council and he's only 50 yrs old.
I see more Alec Baldwin there. Sorry.
 |
 |
 |
||
|
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
Yo tambien.
I think that counts for more than people may realize.
I hope y'all are right and I end up dead wrong. In these days, however, I look for a knife in every handshake...
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”
My sibling who is happy about Roberts, made the same cautionary point above. I hope Ann is wrong.
I do think there were far more red flags about Souter. And his nomination was not as hailed by conservatives, as Roberts nomination has been, though I do understand Ann's point that Roberts seems to have carefuly avoided controversy.
We shall see.
Ann is right, he is a stealth candidate. She is also right that Republicans have had no luck with such candidates. I am somewhat reassured by Mark Levin's endorsement, but he is not infallible. I hope Bush's strategy is to nominate his safest conservative choice for the first seat, and to really rattle the liberal's cage on the second choice. David Boies was on Scarborough last night and he was too comfortable with Roberts for me to be comfortable.
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.
