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'm not convinced. All I see is a bunch of hearsay and a handful of opinions that don't add up to much.
I'm bored so I'll go calculate the respective statistic for O'Connor & Kennedy for the just concluded term.
Which does not answer my question on whether a separate concurrance on a case where they also joined in an opinion (not in part) would count as a "full" agreement. The reason I ask is that Thomas not only fully-joined in the dissent that O'Connor wrote in Kelo, but he also wrote a separate dissent.
Why do I keep hearing Democrats and newscasters referring to Roe v Wade as 'settled law'?
Someone needs to point out to the left and the wacky women's groups that at one time in our history, women not being allowed to vote was considered settled law.
Someone also needs to point out to minorities that at one time in our history, blacks were not counted as whole people and that was settled law.
In other words, there is no such thing as settled law. When the people of our nation open their eyes and realize that an injustice is being done, they stand up and demand change. When the day comes, and it will come, that Americans realize that murdering millions of unborn humans is unjust then the law should and will be changed.
A few years back in a speech President Bush gave about equal rights for blacks, he said in essence that every year America lived with slavery was a stain on our Republic. I hope that soon we will have a President with the moral character to say the same about abortion and a Supreme Court with the ability to do something about it.
And then............there's always the possibility Ann is playing devil's advocate in order to further thwart the democrats. Isn't that a delicious thought? Get some of our strongest conservative voices to feign disagreement with Bush nominee, call Roberts a closet lib.....now wouldn't that throw the dems off stride.
Rush is giving his take on Ann's column...I'm sure you're listening.
"You need some of this:"
Sorry, but I'm not a Kool Aid drinker like some on this forum. How about a nice Hawaiian Punch.
Reguardless, I would be interested in your results. I am confident Roberts will score much better than O'Conner and Kennedy. A look at the those stats may reveal what a reasonable number for the bet would be. And we don't have to do the full $1K, we can do a hundred or two and maybe just donate it to FR. I am open to any reasonable terms.
"I'm not convinced. All I see is a bunch of hearsay and a handful of opinions that don't add up to much."
Hearsay coming from Coulter? Or, hearsay regarding Robert's reputation.
In her week attempt to claim that Roberts is another Souter, she utterly failed to note the stark difference in their respective backgrouds.
1. Roberts clerked for Rehnquist...and worked in the Reagan Administration. Later, he served with Kenn Starr at the Solicitor's Office. He now serves on the highest appellate court in the country.
vs.
2. Souter....a justice from the New Hampshire Supreme Court...with little in the way of conservative background.
As I have said, you can tell a lot about a person by the company he keeps. Judge Roberts is a Reagan alumnus.
'nuff said.
And it was -- until a constitutional amendment was passed.
Someone also needs to point out to minorities that at one time in our history, blacks were not counted as whole people and that was settled law.
Again, until a constitutional amendment was passed.
There is a legit possibility that someone who thinks Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision nevertheless would not overrule it based on stare decisis. To "unsettle" it, you'd need that amendment. Maybe Roberts believes that way -- I dunno.
That is kind of tricky, but if they both sign the same dissent, it sounds like full agreement. That would just be a matter of Thomas wanting to get a few more cents in.
Hearsay regarding Roberts. Those are good credentials, and better than Souter's, but other candidates such as Edith Jones and Michael Luttig have much better credentials especially where they matter: how they ruled in the past.
I'm not as pessimistic as Ann seems to be, just wish the credentials were rock solid, which IMHO, they're not.
And mighty unfortunate, given his less-than-telegenic mug and smarmy demeanor.
What is her name. I would like to hear more about her and her involvement for FFL. She must know Eunice Shriver.
Roberts is a better pick than Edith Jones or Michael Luttig because of his oral advocacy skills. Remember, he will have to confront hostile Dems on the Judiciary Committee.
Further, he is more likely to having a lasting impact because of what he will bring to oral arguments (like Scalia) and his writing ability (like Scalia).
While Jones and Luttig were both fine candidates, Roberts is regarded as a sharper lawyer. He has the same conservative philosphy to boot.
Very nice photo, Babu.
I am not convinced she is unhappy. With her tongue planted firmly in her cheek, she conducts an exercise in reverse psychology.
The link below is about a very important decision, Judge Roberts made last week on the WOT.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1446937/posts
Bush's Justice and the War on Terror
Front Page Magazine ^ | 07/20/05 | Henry Mark Holzer
Posted on 07/20/2005 10:58:36 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Bush's Justice and the War on Terror
By Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com
July 20, 2005
The media coverage of President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the O'Connor seat on the Supreme Court of the United States has understandably focused on his legal background and conservative credentials.
Because the court on which he now sits—the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—has twelve justices who sit in random panels of three, and because Judge Roberts has been a member of that court for only two years, critics of his nomination such as Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin and Schumer will have a limited number of cases on the basis of which to attack him.
In an odd quirk, the case upon which they may rely most was decided only last Friday. Two other circuit judges (one of whom wrote the opinion) and Judge Roberts unanimously rendered a decision that strikes a blow for our country in our War on Terror.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan was admittedly Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan from 1996 to two months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in Washington, DC, and New York City.
On November 13, 2001, President Bush, with Congressional approval, promulgated an Order relating to the "Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. That Order, among other provisions, created Military Tribunals.
Hamdan was captured by Afghani troops in Afghanistan in late November 2001, turned over to the American military, and then interned at Guantanamo.
In July 2003, the President determined that there was reason to believe Hamdan was either a member of al Qaeda or otherwise engaged in terrorism against the United States.
In accordance with President Bush's Order of November 13, 2001, and his July 2003 determination that good cause existed to believe Hamdan was a terrorist, he was marked to be tried before a Military Commission.
In December 2003, Hamdan was appointed counsel.
In April 2004, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia—even though at that time there was no federal statute or Supreme Court decision that allowed Hamdan, an "enemy combatant," to do so.
But Hamdan, and the rest of the Guantanamo detainees didn't have long to wait.
Just two months later, the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush ruled that "enemy combatants" were entitled not only to file petitions for habeas corpus (anywhere in the United States), but were also entitled to due process of law. Sandra Day O'Connor was the fifth, swing vote that allowed the Court's four liberals—Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer—to so handcuff our country's defense against terrorists.
While Hamdan's habeas corpus petition was pending, he was formally charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, murder, destruction of property and terrorism. In addition to charging that Hamdan was bin Laden's driver, it was alleged that the defendant served as bin Laden's bodyguard, delivered weapons to al Qaeda members, and trained at an al Qaeda camp.
As a result of the Hamdi decision, Hamdi went before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which found that he was indeed an enemy combatant "either a member of or affiliated with Al Qaeda." Consequently, his continued detention was required.
Enter judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Here is his biography:
Judge Robertson was appointed United States District Judge in December 1994 [by William Jefferson Clinton].
He graduated from Princeton University in 1959 and received an LL.B. from George Washington University Law School in 1965 after serving in the U.S. Navy. From 1965 to 1969, he was in private practice with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering [Lloyd Cutler was, for a while, White House counsel to President Clinton]. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as chief counsel of the Committee's litigation offices in Jackson, Mississippi, and as director in Washington, D.C. Judge Robertson then returned to private practice with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where he practiced until his appointment to the federal bench. While in private practice, he served as president of the District of Columbia Bar, co-chair of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc.
On November 8, 2004—perhaps driven by his own politics, but certainly by the license given him by O'Connor's Hamdi and Rasul decisions—Robertson granted a part of Hamdan's habeas corpus petition.
Essentially, Robertson ruled that bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist driver might be covered by the 1949 Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, and until a competent tribunal found otherwise Hamdan (and, by implication, anyone like Hamdan) could not be tried by a military commission. To enforce his ruling, Robertson enjoined the Defense Department from conducting any further proceedings against Hamdan.
The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Only two "friend of the court" briefs were filed supporting the government: the "Washington Legal Foundation" and "The American Center for Law and Justice."
"Friends of the court" supporting the terrorist included dozens of law professors, "305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians," "Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Amhad Sulayman Al Bahlui," "Military Law Practitioners and Academicians," "National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers," "Human Rights First," "General Merrill A. McPeak," "People for the American Way," "The World Organization for Human Rights USA," "Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights"—and, worst of all, the prestigious "Association of the Bar of the City of New York."
Despite this array of "friends," the Court of Appeals panel—one of whom was John G. Roberts, Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court—reversed Judge Robertson, rejecting his conclusion that Hamdan was covered by the Geneva Convention, which could be enforced in a United States federal court. Robertson had conveniently ignored the Supreme Court precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager (which the current liberal Court majority massaged, in order to reach its conclusion in Rasul), which held that the Geneva Convention, a compact between governments, was not judicially enforceable in a private lawsuit. Period!
Hamdan had made two other arguments. One was that a particular Army Regulation provided relief for him. It requires that prisoners receive Geneva Convention protection "until some other legal status is determined by competent authority." (Emphasis added) The Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush was such a competent authority. To the extent that the Army Regulation requires a "competent tribunal" to determine his status, the Court of Appeals ruled that a military commission is one. So if the Army Regulation even applies, Hamdan can tell the commission that he should be considered a prisoner of war.
Last, and since the Geneva Convention issue appears to be settled, most important both for the War on Terror and the War for the Supreme Court, is Hamdan's argument that President Bush had no power to constitute military commissions because Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court" only to Congress.
As to this argument, the Court of Appeals ruled, and reminded Judge Robertson, that when President Bush promulgated his order of November 13, 2001, he had relied on various sources of authority: Commander in Chief, the post-9/11 Congressional authorization to use force in the War on Terror, the Articles of War, the World War II cases of Ex parte Quirin and In re Yamashita. Said the Court of Appeals—said nominee Roberts, by joining the majority opinion—given the foregoing, "It is impossible to see any basis for Hamdan's claim that Congress has not authorized military commissions".
Although Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has struck an important blow against the War on Terror (and in the process rebuked an obviously Left-wing federal judge), we have not heard the last of the case or the crucially important issues it has raised. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is only one of thirteen circuit courts, in any of which these same issues can be litigated. One way or another, they will reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
When they do, the cases will be heard by a newly appointed justice who is not merely the conservative that the President promised, but one who understands the Constitution, the appropriate manner of its interpretation, and, of utmost importance today, the seriousness of our War on Terror.
Fine. Why exactly do you think that?
Ann tells it like it is, and once again I agree with her.
Ann Coulter not doing her homework?
Possible, but improbable.
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.