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.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
“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.”
A post-Bork disclosure such as this may mean that he wanted to leave his options open as fas as future SCOTUS appointment was concerned.
Yup, that'll be fun. How 'bout I bookmark this thread and after every ten rulings I'll post the alignment summary for each case and the affinity statistics for justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. That way everything will also be aboveboard and we can quickly resolve any dispute about classification for a given ruling. In the past couple terms the Court has heard 80 cases so I'm sure it'll be about that many this next term (unless something very dramatic happens).
We probably won't get much sense of how it's going until we get to about 30 rulings though. The earliest decisions of a term will lean heavily toward unanimous and per curiam rulings. Oh, and we should formally agree to exclude any case where any one of the three justices doesn't take part.
I'll be sure to ping our bookie along the way! ;^)
And if Ann ain't happy, there ain't anybody happy!
And GOP senator Warren Rudman, another New Hampshire buddy of Souter deserves as much of the blame. I think they both knew Souter was a NE liberal, but lied to Bush. Of course, George Bush was much more of a RINO than George W, and the people he surrounded himself with showed that. Probably the biggest disaster recent pick in years, but Roberts is in no way in that mold.
She looks so, anorexic. Hope she isn't.
Faith in Mr. Bush and his administration. Now go back to DU, troll.
Go back to DU, you naysayer. Mr. Bush knows what he is doing. If you want to run the country, get elected POTUS.
Sounds good. Bookmarked.
And I'll be sure to ping you guys to the July 2006 FReepathon (assuming that we still need FReepathons then) for payment. The term ends in late-June, so as long as Roberts makes it onto the Court by October, he'll be there for the full term. Between June and October, all they do is take "emergency" cases (like last-minute death-row appeals that generally don't produce full-blown opinions).
"Do you even know Roberts? That is simply an outrageous comment."
Hugh Hewitt vouches for Roberts...knows him personally and played some team BB with him. I hope the "Rats rake him over. He survives the baptism by fire and cements his conservatism even deeper. aka Clarence Thomas. Snowballs chance in hell that he moves leftward.
Never liked Sununu. Always heard he was a nasty-tempered old s.o.b.
That is comforting.
Did you have faith in Bush Senior when he nominated Souter? It didn't work out then did it? Faith is not enough.
Look, there is nothing anywhere to be found in his record that this guy is either solid or has a record like a Scalia in "adhereing [sic] to the Constitution" in any way I think important.
On the narrow issue of Roe v. Wade, I think it is a completely defensible proposition that in a free country, everyone, including women, have a constitutional right to be secure from invasion by government of their right to management of their body. So you might well uphold the right to privacy foundation of the decision and say but what about the right of the baby to be free from deprivation of its "life without due process of law"--an issue on which Mr. Roberts has never really said anything.
As to the rest of this, Roberts is a very very smart guy who has managed to leave no real footprints on the substance of any issue--exactly like Souter; a guy who has been campaigning for a Supreme Court appointment all his life. Under circumstances where we have enough political muscle to appoint any one of four or five choices who are clearly hard core on every single one of the issues that count.
In a business in which contention is the principal activity, whether in court or in negotiations or in just about every other daily activity, it is very suprising the extent to which lawyers, in their everyday business existence absolutly shun controversy. The name of the game is "collegial"--go along; avoid arguments. Partner's meetings in large law firms are picnics just like Board of Director's meetings in large public companies, called for the purpose of rubber stamping the Management Committee's decisions.
And most of the time, when judges get on the panel courts, the drift of their decision making is toward the noncontroversal center. I want a Supreme Court justice committed to reversal of the "switch in time that saved nine"--we have purportedly paid the price of saving nine at the ballot box--no need to provide more switchers. My rights under the Second Amendment include not only my AK-47 but all four of my bazookas and my RPG launcher. And notwithstanding the recent Supreme Court decision, I still think my private property can be taken by government only for public use.
This guy has no record of any personal commitment contrary to the two party common line on any of these things.
This guy is going to get confirmed and he is a lousy choice--I hope the Dems can come up with a long history of smoking dope between oral arguments.
And there is a huge difference between hearsay and evidence.
I respect your opinion, but I still am certain this guy is a winner. Souter is a dark spot in history for conservatives that we don't want to repeat. But I would be amazed at someone who has worked his entire career on the side of conservative republicans and is a Catholic married to an extremely pro-life wife, who ends up being a Souter. Souter fooled most people, but that was before Google. It is so much harder to fool people today as information is so available to everyone. But lawyers are lawyers....I guess we will have to wait and see, but I would be completely shocked if Roberts is not a pro-life, pro-Constitution conservative.
My hand wants to whack my boss. And my ex. And Democrats. I demand management of my own body without government interference! It's MY body!
Coulter's right on the money on this.
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.