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 share Ann's skepticism.
Is Roberts for or against stare decisis?
That is key.
I for one wouldn't poke her with your stick.
Grow up...
Don't be ashamed, you're no doubt wrong about a few other things too..
SLAP.. SLAP.. wake up kid.. You're NOT Richey Cunningham.. and I'm not the Fonze..
Ken Starr would have been a better "stick THIS in your pipe and smoke it" than Bork. Bork would have only lasted long enough to require replacing in the middle of some Democrat's administration.
I am not questioning her legal background -- I question her making statements which gets more facetime with an article stirring the pot and Freepers that believe she is always right and ask for more pictures.
My general complaint is with Freepers that blindly follow what anyone has to say without thinking or research. That would be like me saying the President is right 100% of the time -- never going to happen.
Same here. Just read that this morn and my spirits drooped.
I disagree.
A good attorney will analyze the case from both sides. Obviously building his or her own case but ferreting out the weaknesses in the case by in effect building the other side's case as well. You have to anticipate arguments from the other side in order to address them first. You have your facts, you apply them to the law and most of the time if you took the case for sound reasons, you will prevail.
A good judge is likewise able to analyze both sides and apply the law. The skills are similar. I know very few "bad attorneys" who make "good judges" and very few "good attorneys" who make "bad judges".
So, basically, he is doing opposite of what Souter did?
Thats a good thing in my book.
Like Bush they talk the conservative language for votes but as soon as a conservative takes them to task they are in for the kill.
Shameless hypocrites...
ping
Thanks - I had looked at NRA GOA and found nothing as well.
It sounds good - but without proven performance....
Well, I can agree that you're definitely not The Fonze.
Oh no.. Would you have a link?
I disagee. A good lawyer is a good advocate. A good judge knows the difference between justice and advocacy.
"You know what? I am, indeed offended by this column."
That's obvious given your lengthy responses
"In fact, it reminds me of a Maureen Dowd column"
Don't compare Ann Coulter to Maureen Dowd. It's like one idiot around here who compares Tom Tancredo to Cynthia McKinney.
"Furthermore, the ridiculous comments made by many of the whiners over the last week (and I assume that includes you) were also very offensive, so I don't particularly care if you got your feelings hurt last night."
Sorry, I wasnt whining and I didnt get my feelings hurt. I want the best for America, which included getting judges like scalia and thomas on the court.
It seems that many here, like yourself put themselves as Republican first, not Americans. Being American trumps all, which if you support the founder's intent--means NO SOCIALISM. That means not implementing a socialist prescription drug plan, funding our socialist school system with 50% more money than clinton ever did, and so on.
Its fine, you keep drinking the kool aid and think that "oh as long as the government grows under a republican ... THATS OK!!" , I'll remain intellectually honest and stick to my principles...
Wouldn't you want all decisions that have usurped the powers of the respective states overturned? Roe v Wade is just one decision out of many that the federal judiciary centralized the power under the auspices of the federal government.
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.