If that puzzled you, I'm sure you were made worse than the most difficult jigsaw puzzle on Peggy Noonan's column about Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary.
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.
I agree. Unfortunately, on some issues I think Ann looks for "Air Time". But makes for interesting discussion.
If that puzzled you, I'm sure you were made worse than the most difficult jigsaw puzzle on Peggy Noonan's column about Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary.
Actually *because* so few second amendment cases (the last being in 1937) are ruled on by the Supreme Court, lower court judges actually have more opportunity to rule on them, since the field hasn't been occupied by the SC. The ninth circuit certainly has addressed the issue, as has the fifth and several others. The DC court of appeals is less likely to have done so, especially in the short time Roberts has been serving there.
Don't know but Ann could be doing
Burr Rabbit and Tar Baby here,
"Please Please what ever you do, don't throw me into the brier patch"
If the right cries against him the left will want him.
Bttt
I don't suppose Ann's doing a "Tar Baby", here.
Robert Bork is a brilliant man and a true conservative, but he is nearing eighty. Hardly a good choice for the Supreme Court at this point!!
Somewhat, a lawyer is a prostitute, but it does not mean they don't have a say in who they prostitute for. I can't imagine a liberal lawyer making a career out of prostituting for only conservatives. And a brilliant prostitute at that. It just doesn't compute. And he is married to a pro-life woman, and is a Catholic. The idea that he is a Souter is bazaar.
Can't cite a source but other posts on this thread have also referred to it.
#386
GMTA
And you are right because you "believe" he is going to be another Thomas/Scalia. I think you're going to have to do better than that to impress the Freepers in this blog.
It's not like Ann to practice reverse psychology. This will only make it more effective, however.
Male model material, definitely! Perhaps that's his "Blue Steel" look. Thanks for the photo!
Someone else commented that Alec Baldwin would have been a better comparison. I guess maybe so, but it's just so hard to remember back when Alec Baldwin was, well, good-looking instead of dissipated. Years of steeping in the fetid brine of leftism have taken their toll.
"This guy", also thinks America is a democracy.. and a Constitutional Democracy at that <- own words.. on TV yet right after Bush got off the podium..
{snip} A Supreme that thinks the U.S. is a democracy, a Consitutiional democracy.?..
Could be BUSH thinks the same thing.. The Roberts nomination calls BUSHS' qualifications into question more than it does Roberts'.. Maybe, Bush don't ONLY resemble Alfred E. Neuman he is the reality of the cartoon character.. and is trying desperately to PROVE IT..
No wonder Ann Coulter is fit to be tied.. I don't blame her a bit..
Bush just out'ed himself, this time.. She didn't attack Bush directly but should.. Ann Coulter is the leanest meanest RINO Exposer of all time.. They cannot help themselves.. I'm, Watching this thread, closely.. The RINOS will LOVE Roberts... he's one of them..
Which would have to mean taht both parties are dominated by lieberals.
You misunderstood. You were intimating the fact that Mrs. Roberts appears to be pro-life is a good indication of Judge Roberts' position. I said that President Bush's wife is pro-choice. That would seem to defeat, or at least compromise, your conclusion.
That's the kind of trick rats often use on non-political people ("...the media is controlled by Republican corporations...") but I doubt it could work on the rats themselves. In their eyes, a person to the left of Ann's could still easily be a "dangerous right-wing hater who must be stopped."
I think Miss Coulter is actually speaking her mind in the article. Which is almost always the best policy if you are on the right side of things.
I understand that and it is important to install some conservative that will be there for decades. It's just I'd love to have seen the dims looks had Bork been named.
I don't think I agree with her, but I need to see a picture of her in a mini-skirt again before I decide for sure.
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.