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.
BE, a legal beagle, sort of likes the 14th Amendment/Person as the vehicle.
Amen and I think he is also scared of women!
LOL!
About out country's (regardless of party in charge) clueless reaction to Jihadist terrorism.
It's the second best book Ive read on the subject (Col. Hunt refers to the other book), but I knew if there was any positive response at all it would be to Col. Hunt's book.
If you read his, then get the other one.
BTW, is it my imagination or has the Colonel's appearances on FOX NEWS channel diminished since he wandered off the reservation?
Let's be realistic here... I think some of the other conservatives, esp female and or minority mentioned have less time on the bench than Roberts.
Bush will have one to three more opportunities to add to the SC. Hopefully we will gain some seats in the Senate and therefore his next nominees will be even more conservative than Roberts.
Let's face it. He can nominate anyone he wishes and they are going to pass. We control the senate.
nick
I've had it for a tagline for weeks and you're the first.
I don't think you have to pray to hard on this one.
He is a member of the federalist society, is married to a pro-life activist, is a member of some kind of republican lawyers group, is best friends with Michael Luttig (aka lil scalia) and a campaign donor for numerious republicans.
Its not exactly a shot in the dark on this one. He was also an advisor on the Bush vs Gore case, to Bush knows him personally, as well as knowing people who know Roberts personally.
Coulter should have waited at least one or two more days and done some research, she jumped the gun a bit, this guy isn't even a stealth nominee.
Involved isn't the word.
She was either the head or one of the leaders of the organization and is still active with them.
Ann Coulter has John G. Roberts, Jr., pegged for a "pod person", one of the aliens in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
So what if he is? Maybe that is what America really needs now. There are already so many disconnects from reality that one more only hastens the eventual meltdown this country must go through before the "pod people" get their act together.
I'm guardedly optimistic, but he's young and has many years for the Wash. Post to slowly mold him into a "moderate".
I respect Ann to no end regarding her opinions, but I hope in the case of Roberts that he becomes a great Judge and that Ann is wrong on this one.
Wrong....they should be criticized when they screw up, act stupid and show their RINO behinds, but in private or in forums like FR...not openly in newspaper and on television where every stupid liberal Democrat and lame-brain member of the media can go "see Republicans are divided and don't support _____ (fill in the blank)!
Republicans and conservatives bashing each other will get reported everytime! When is the last time you read or saw a Democrat or liberal bashing each other. It may have happened....heck if there can be a white Christmas in Galveston, anything can happen....
My point is Republicans and conservatives face an enemy called the Mainstream Media. They will use any comment, any action or any non-action to bash us! Some jerk or jerkett at the New York Times is probably already writing a column about how unfit Roberts is for the Supreme Court. In addition to their usual pack of lies, no doubt they will say "even conservative pundit Ann Coulter doesn't care for Roberts."
Don't be silly.
The libs are not about be lining up behind Ann!
To the contrary.
I will bet cash money to this forum that within one week we will either hear Coulter quoted in the papers or on the floor of the Senate. If you think otherwise, you are not keeping up with how the Rats operate.
Uh oh, that doesn't sound good.
The last thing we need is another, go-along-with-liberals, please-don't-hurt-me, invite-me-to-your-parties, weak-willed conservative, or RINO. Especially sitting for the Supreme Court- the unelected overlords of our nation.
Ann does raise some valid reasons for concern. For the sake of our country, I pray she is wrong about John Roberts, that he turns out to be a true, dedicated, conservative.
The more I hear about him the more I like him.
The perpetual mantra of the Senate reelectioin campaign - all we need are a few more seats. We've got a majority now and refuse to play hardball to advance our agenda and we protect the RINOS we've got rather than encouraging challenges in the primary. And I don't subscribe to the first nomination is a freebie because we are going to get one to two more and the picks will be better next time. There were better, more seasoned originalists of comparable age that could have been nominated instead of Roberts. Do you really think another seat or two is going to make the President any bolder in his next nomination? If so, then we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
You're on babe!
Your farm against mine!
He told me!
We miss you here in PBC you old dog.
I am confident in my position.
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.