SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER

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 think perhaps FR and moderators perhaps agree with some of our points. Maybe initially criticism of CFR or prescription drugs or funding for socialist schools would have appeared too critical, but now we can look back at the big picture and really see where the republican party has moved leftward.

i've made this point over and over, but its a good one and deserves repeating. if the founding fathers were reincarnated and formed a political party, the republicans of today would appear as lite-leftists compared to them.
voting democrat is pushing the fast forward button to socialism, while voting republican is a small yet ineffective brake on socialism.

In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), Roberts wrote:
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

"Abortion of live babies is not mainstream..."

Did you see what Babu posted about Roberts on Roe V Wade? I reposted it above.

Hey Ann, ya think that anyone who argued cases for the Reagan Administration ISN'T a bedrock conservative?

Please point out where Ann C. said he was not.
Matter of fact, point out in the column where she says "Roberts is the wrong pick".

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, I found it rather confusing and too summarized for me to get a clear view of what the issues were, what the pertinent laws were, what the constitutional issues were, and where Roberts stood. (I'm not being sarcastic; I do appreciate your finding the link.)

My take it is that absent the ultimate abolition of judicial review, praise for a judge's philosophy means nothing since the Supreme Court is a difference place from lower courts. Its the next thing to be being God and the temptation to slide Left to please the academy and the media will be enormous. At some point, being human, you begin thinking about your legacy, and you start worrying what the MSM editors think of your opinions and whether you will be invited to the right parties. Washington is a town that makes easy to morph into a liberal so you be well liked. I'm not saying Judge Roberts isn't a good man and he may well be a conservative but you can't judge whether he's going to be a great Justice on the basis of a few lower court opinions. In that regards, Ann's caution is well placed. We were burned before.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

"Well, she does make some very persuasive points. Especially this one: Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural."

Considering the Abortion on Demand at any time for any one paid for by the Govt mindset of our political foes, the below is quite controversial.

"In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), Roberts wrote:
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

And McCain's praise of Roberts should set off warning bells in our heads. Why does the RINO like a conservative. I can't think of one reason McCain would like one. Can you think of one?

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

Please point out where Ann C. said he was not. [a bedrock conservative]

She implies that because he doesn't have a long "track record" of legal opinions as a judge, that he could end up being liberal as Souter. She doesn't say he isn't conservative, she just indicates that he might not be -- her preference obviously being for someone with more outspoken views in a longer record of jurisprudence, like Luttig or Edith Hallan Jones.

Reading the commentary, it's clear the the commentators admire Bush for choosing someone who will take the Court further to the right, and also someone for whom it will be very difficult for the Senate Dems to find any traction to argue against. Double whammy.

Bush, like his father before him, is no conservative. He's a genuine "moderate", of which there are very few in either party.

I sincerely hope that Ann's predictions here about him are untrue, but I have to admit, I am worried.

I would have been far happier with a candidate with solid conservative credentials, and she is right on target about Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor.

Read post 5. It will make you feel better about Roberts. It is a posting of one of his position on Roe V Wade

You might be right, however then, why have scalia and thomas stayed true to their form?

Also, one can say he's maintained a neutral track record in the appeals courts maybe he will show us his true conservative make up once on the SC.

I don't recall the backgrounds of o conner, kennedy or souter but I don't think they had the high marks that Roberts had or the experience of advocating cased before the SC in behalf of the USA on conservative issues.

The next SC nominee must be a tried and true conservative thinker with the writings to back it up.

Yes, we've been burned before...in fact looking back on the bozos that republicans have nominated makes me wonder what in the heck were these people thinking?

I agree. Please note, however, that Coulter's source was an RNC set of talking points that despicted him as an opponent of welfare time limits. The idiots at the RNC appeared to like this stand!

"And the assurance of conservative groups and the President just aren't reliable enough to base the nomination of a life-time appointment"

Ok, let me get this straight. There are a whole bunch of Conservative groups emailing me relentlessly to support Roberts. I am suppose to ignore that, and the President, and put more faith in the statements of some unknown poster on a website? I guess I would need to see some solid facts to back up your opinon before I could agree with your view.

This article is so pointless and nieve. Nieve, in that she thinks that the Washington insiders who are advising the President don't really know Robert's position on all the issues. Of course they do. Guess what? They also had a pretty good idea on Souter as well.

Well... if a judge does slide Left on the Supreme Court, how you will you answer the critics? President Eisenhower's famous reply comes to mind his big mistake was Earl Warren. A President can pick well and he'll also make the occasional flub. In the end it all comes down to the fact no one can control the thoughts and choices another human being will make, not even Presidents.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

And McCain's praise of Roberts should set off warning bells in our heads. Why does the RINO like a conservative. I can't think of one reason McCain would like one. Can you think of one?

McCain is not a RINO, but an egotistical idiot. McCain has a very solid conservative voting record, but he likes to get publicity. The only thing McCain's opposition or support means is that he thinks it is better for his Presidential apirations.

"Souter wasn't married to a pro-life advocate"...

Of course not... rather he is Ruthie's little Weasel Boy. Notice how he hangs around Buzzy Ruth and his rulings are nearly always in line with hers? Weasely Souter gets to hiding under Ruthie's skirt tails. What a squish he is and Daddy Bush wasted that pick on the N.H. Weasel... BIGTIME.

Yes - details.

Ann is fundamentally correct. Bush can pick anyone he wants. Anyone. Why pick someone that could slide through a Dem senate when that isn't needed? Why have uncertainty? Why not find a great 39 year old litigator doing pro-bono work for right wing causes all over the place (like the left did when they appointed Ginsburg - though she was not 39, more like 89).

"McCain is not a RINO, but an egotistical idiot. McCain has a very solid conservative voting record, but he likes to get publicity. "

McCain't got the disease,,,, 'Specteritis'

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.