Here's my favorite of Ann.
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.
The unfortunate truth many don't want to hear.
Well, first off, I would suspect that at the bottom of all those relentless emails you're getting is a line something like "Please send a donation to help us support the nomination of John Roberts." Also, just because a group is conservative doesn't make them any less gullible than a liberal group. I am not even necessarily claiming that these groups are wrong. All I'm saying is that, in large part, it is wishful thinking to state that John Roberts is a diehard conservative. We've got people looking at what groups his wife belongs to and how many children he has to determine whether he may overturn Roe v. Wade. We have people pointing to the brief he helped write for the first Bush Administration which opined that Roe was wrongly decided and should be revisited. Lawyers are taught to put forth viewpoints on behalf of their client that they themselves may not necessarily believe in.
We all want to believe that John Roberts is an originalist and will interpret the Constitution that way. My point is, and has been, that John Roberts doesn't have a record of the caliber of, say a Judge Samuel Alito, or Judge Emilio Garza or Edith Hollans Jones, where you can point to decision after decision after decision and say, "now, that's based on an originalist interpretation of the document." So, it becomes very difficult to actually ascertain his true judicial philosophy. Part of the reason he doesn't, is, of course, that he hasn't been on the Appeals Court for very long. Secondly, he seems to have taken pains in the past to dissociate himself from positions that might generate controversy. If he decided an issue based on a particular philosophy, he should be able to articulate it and defend it....not try to make himself the smallest target possible. To me, it seems we are so worried that there is a battle coming during confirmation that we are trying to minimize the arguments. That is a liberal strategy. You pass yourself off as something innocuous. What I'm saying is that, if John Roberts believes in an originalist philosophy of interpreting the Constitution (which we can't really tell because of the paucity of his record), he (or any nominee) should be able to explain the rationale for such a decision. Whether you believe this was a good nomination depends on several factors. First, I think he is obviously better than Gonzales would have been. But, then, that little voice whispers to me wondering if that might not have been a bit of strategy in and of itself....float a name of someone unsuitable to the base, then name a relative unknown....we'd be too busy breathing a sigh at dodging the Gonzales bullet that we'd forget that we only have some people's word that this guy is the real deal. Again, let me emphasize, other than one or two decisions that might indicate he could be a future swing vote there is not enough evidence to judge definitively either way, which, considering the importance of the position for which he's been nominated, and the other available candidates in whom we could have more confidence. For example, his comments in his dissent in Rancho Viejo v. Norton, in which he dissented from the decision of the court the Constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act arises from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution sounds like a good originalist reading of the Constitution...but then he goes further and urges that they could find other reasons to uphold the act, which sounds a bit activist to me. In any case, all I'm saying is that there were better choices to make than this one. We don't know, from his opinions, his judicial philosophy. We have heard more than once that a President has nominated a "solid" conservative only to have them become the next swing vote. In order to make confirmation easier, they have again chosen a judge that affords the smallest target. That is a good strategy for a rabbit in a field, but not for your pick for a lifetime position deciding matters of Constitutionality especially when you had available other potential nominees about whom you had little doubt.
No need for apology. We all do it. We get about halfway through one of these long threads (500 replies or greater) and see a comment that we want to respond to, not realizing someone else has already made our brilliant point for us about 50 posts down the line!
Man did you miss the target.
By light years!
I want a site where the truth can be spoken. A site where research and fact are accepted when it runs contrary to the cheerleaders.
Your analysis collapsed--I suggest you read a bit closer before posting.
I have been saying on these threads for the past few days that for all the trouble we will have to go through regardless, we ought to have more assurance about what we are actually fighting for. All we have right now, as far as I can determine, is a guy who is very bright and has built a solid resume but, as you said, no real track record to give us insight into a philosophy you can hang your hat on.
Ping.
Is that some kind of oxymoron?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1871.shtml
These guys aren't too excited about Roberts, either, although IMHO this is a speedbump complaint, not a roadblock.
Until, of course, HRC becomes Der Fuhrer...
The guy who couldn't put away the most corrupt President in history?
LOL!
Ummmnnnhhh...by your dictum, cretins like Spectral Specter, John McPain, and others, would be immune from criticism for their ridiculous, abhorrent, and deviant positions.
RR nodded on that one. Don't make the same error.
Yes, that is my only worry. While I like and admire President Bush, for a nomination of this magnitude, I'd have been much more comfortable with someone about whom there was little doubt where he stood with regard to judicial philosophy. I have also been very frank in that I don't want a conservative judge because I dislike judicial activism, whether from the left or from the right. I want an originalist, one who will interpret the document as written and as understood at the time of its adoption. By happy coincidence, the vast majority of conservative positions agree with originalist interpretations. If they aren't, however, then we need to walk the talk and persuade our fellow citizens to passing laws to reflect any conservative beliefs we value that are not reflected in the Constitution, as Justice Scalia repeatedly scolds the liberals to do.
Replace a moderate with some a little more conservative.
Replace Rehnquist, a conservative with another solid conservative.
The goal is to change the ideological makeup of the Court.
If we could swing one vote our way, that is all it would take.
If one of the liberal judges retire during the next three years, expect to have a moderate put in, moving the Court even more to the Right.
In the end, all judical nominations are unknown quality.
Ike believed that the worst decision he made during his Presidency was putting Earl Warrren in.
Starr is a LOT less "conservative" than most people think, and an incompetent, to boot--as you observe.
How does Feminists for Life differ from that Goddess philosophy?
Would they outlaw abortions as murder?
Assinine article. Yep, despite Roberts being in the Federalist Society, clerking for Reinquist, and running in GOP cicles all his life, he's really a closeted liberal.
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.