SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

Ann Coulter.com ^ | 7-30-05 | Ann Coulter

[Steve_Seattle]

"So the french fry case is really just this court throwing out a frivolous lawsuit against the police who were enforcing a well-known law."

Probably true, but the Dems are spinning it as picking on and roughing up a little girl because of a french fry. Don't underestimate their ability to obscure the legal issues and try to make Roberts sound like a bully. I can hear it now (woman's voice in shocked tones): "Judge Roberts handcuffed a 12 year old girl for eating a french fry on a bus."

[Poincare]

If he is a strict constctionalist.....you have your answer.

And looking at it the other way around, a judges attitude about the RKBA tells us whether he trusts the people or the government first.

[traderrob6]

Balderdash, if she is equating him with Souter, that's exactly what she's saying.

[Huck]

For all we know the great Mark Levin is on the payroll, ala Armstrong Williams. Don't tell me Levin likes him. Tell me upon what he bases his support.

[Texas Federalist]

Perhaps you should actually read some of his rulings.

By avoiding my question, you have answered it.

[shield]

It's the other nominations we need to worry about. Hoping Bush loads this court with proven conservatives...turning those black robes back to protecting America and the majority of Americans' values.

Bush could have several more nominations, most probably 2 more. ;o)

[Steve_Seattle]

"In addition, by doing this they are conceding that the 'Rat definition of "mainstream" is the correct one. They're basically saying, "Hey look, our nominee isn't out of the mainstream....he's never once criticized Roe . . . "

I completely agree. I think the judicial philosophy debate is one that conservatives can easily win, because - even in this Oprahfied society - original intent corresponds to how most people think about the law.

[Huck]

Putting Roberts on the bench should please most conservative for now

Sounds like a rationalization. I need only point to CFR to show that Bush can sometimes be painfully, woefully wrong. CFR was actually horrible misjudgement on his part and it happened to involve what is in the most charitable interpretation a serious miscalculation of the Supreme Court. There is reason for doubt, and I wish conservatives would put down the kool aid long enough to exert some real pressure from the right.

[El Gato]

Leave Ann alone. As she gets older she will naturally get fatter.

I wouldn't count on it. Ectomorphs usually get even thinner.

[llevrok]

You can't judge a chess game by only one move.

Sure you can. How aggressive is that first move?

This one is a "slam dunk". I think the game will be Renquist's replacement.(the second move).

I am looking for a woman to fill that one.

Oh yeah, has to be a strict constructionist.

[Always Right]

Too many good people like Mark Levin like this guy for him to be another Souter. I think Ann's a little carried away on this one.

Or maybe Ann is trying to give liberals some false hope to support the guy.

I do agree with her, though, that the GOP conservatives should be more aggressive in defending their judicial philosophy. By constantly nominating people with little or no paper trail, you do take a risk of giving us a Souter or an O'Connor or a Kennedy.

Certainly, and I had that feeling with Judge Edith "Joy" Clements yesterday. But Roberts seems 100% solid in the mold of Scalia. Maybe he will disappoint and only be a Rehnquist. But Roberts is no O'Conner and certainly not a Souter.

[RobFromGa]

Probably true, but the Dems are spinning it as picking on and roughing up a little girl because of a french fry.

That's why it is important that the truth be told.

[Texas Federalist]

Um, Luttig voted against Bush in the WOT.

Whether or not you support Bush in your rulings is not the measure of whether you are a textualist or a originalist.

[lugsoul]

We crossed messages.

I know she was referring to Souter. My point is that the attempted comparison to Roberts (who is married and lives in MD with his wife and two kids) has no basis except Coulter's fear of taking a position that is not viewed as the most 'conservative' position on any given topic.

There is no reason to think this guy is anything other than top-notch. Ann is out to lunch on this one. Her presumptions about him are not founded upon anything except her desire to stake out ground to the right of everyone else.

[Alberta's Child]

Yeah, appointing truck drivers to the Court is a great idea. Where do you come up with this stuff?

When you consider that a bag of rocks for a Supreme Court would do far less damage to this country than the Court we now have, I don't think it's such a bad idea.

[Always Right]

Such as? Did his client pay him for his time? For example my point is that a criminal defense attorney does not necessarily believe in the innocence of his client nor does he necessarily believe that crimes should not be defined by the legislature?

Yes, but he also choose to work for Rhenquist, Bush and Reagan. And has an entire career working for conservative cases. It is impossible for me to believe a liberal lawyer would spend his career arguing in court to overturn Roe v. Wade and fighting for other conservative causes.. I am often skeptical, but I think in this case it is completely uncalled for. It would be nice if he had more bench history to judge him on, but the political reality is that is what makes him confirmable.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

If Roberts is a Souter, finding a good recipe for undershorts will be the least of your worries.

All we can do is wait and see.

[Texas Federalist]

Balderdash, if she is equating him with Souter, that's exactly what she's saying.

She is not equating him with Souter. She is saying that his philosophy is unknown. The comparison to Souter is to underscore the potential danger of nominating someone who's philosophy is unknown.

[rollo tomasi]

How am I grasping?

Kennedy was suppose to be "conservative", Souter was suppose to be "conservative", Roberts sounds "conservative" but will not know until he starts deciding cases with 8 other fellow USSC.

It's not like the Republicans have been hoodwinked before (Well Ford still loves the fact he picked Stevens).

I am sorry people question the "Republicans can do no wrong" by pointing out the Republicans past of doing wrong but that's the way it is.

You are going to have people leery considering the Repubs past picks especially passing candidates more "conservative let me shout it to the roof tops" then the Souters, Kennedys, and Roberts.

Also add the fact that this is the first nominee in a long time that Republicans have the House, Senate, and White House. Many Freepers were expecting a genuine, in your face and well qualified "conservative".

[Smile-n-Win]

Putting someone to the slight right on the bench can possibly allow us to push someone more conservative when Rehnquist gives up the bench.

Why do you think so? Giving up ground doesn't automatically make the enemy return the favor.