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.
Like father, like son.
Yes, I heard on Rush's show today that he is a big player in the Washington social scene. Of course, it's being spun as being helpful in getting him concerned, but again, it's a potential little warning sign that he may be a Kennedy type who likes to have liberals think well of him. But this is the problem - we're forced to try to interpret all of these little signals instead of being able to point to a truly substantive record, which we could have done with a Judge Jones or Judge Garza or Judge Alito.
That's pretty broad. I can't believe they'd do it in anything but a jocular mode.
That's great advice. Too bad it wasn't followed. I just hope Roberts turns out to be the real thing, not what Ann fears he might be.
Yea, but he will also have guys like Scalia and Thomas to keep him honest.
Now lets hope we can make Roberts happy by putting his best friend on the bench (either he was an usher or his best man at Roberts wedding), Judge Michael Luttig.
Hey, thanks, Stellar! Right backatcha. :o)
I have in the past criticized Ann for her weight (face it, folks, she just needs to eat more,) but never her brain.
Earlier today I was amazed to see folks backing Jerry Falwell's comments on this matter over Ann's. Once I got over my shock at FReepers being so kind to the good reverend, I thought, Please!! Falwell is more than fine on social issues, but Ann leaves him waaaaaay back in the dust when it comes to things related to the law and the Constitution.
EEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeek!
Make mine a double: "UH-OH...."
or in Scooby-Doo: "RUH-ROH Shaggy..."
The only name I'd add to your list of good nominees is Janice Rogers Brown- we wouldn't have to guess about where she stands either.
"Masterful" indeed............
Pay up. Mort Kondrake just quoted the Coulter column on Brit Hume's show. He wasn't joking.
I like Coulter, but she's not privy to the President's thoughts. She hasn't a clue if he "pretended to consider women and minorities."
He had 11 people to consider, and selected one. He could only select one. She seems to think he should have automatically ruled out any of the 11 who happened to be white males.
I'd prefer that he not take gender or race into consideration and I'm glad he did not.
I can understand the politics of it. It would theoretically be easier to get Judge Roberts confirmed but does that justify the risk if all we've been assured about him is incorrect. Then add the fact that there are effectively no checks on a Supreme Court Justice once he's sworn in. If Scalia or Thomas decide tomorrow to become liberal judicial activists, there isn't a damn thing we could do about it. Of course, if that happens, it's time to turn all the cards over and redeal because the game is over, but I think you see the point. There were nominees about whom we wouldn't have had to play a guessing game or try to find the little subtle hints about whether they are true originalists. Yes, they would have provided fodder for the left to attack, but, if the position is the correct one, why not defend it and put the libs on notice? Why try the stealth approach. If the President had nominated Jacques Chirac, the left would still be attacking him. We knew the battle was coming....we should have picked the best hands down nominee, joined the battle and have gotten it settled right out of the gate. Instead, we take the stealth approach and have to walk on pins and needles with the next pick or picks as well. And let me state again, I'm not saying that Judge Roberts isn't an originalist or even a conservative. All I'm saying is that there isn't enough there in the record to make the judgement without having to trust someone else's supposedly informed opinion. If you think that is reliable, try browsing yesterday's posts on SCOTUS and see how many "A reliable and unimpeachable source just told me" posts there were and of them, how many were totally off base. It's the same with every election cycle. We tie ourselves up in knots with each and every poll or pundit comes out and says our guy can't possibly win because.....when in truth they have no better clue than we do!
He's not "another Souter." He's Roberts.
People are individuals.
That raises a tiny red flag in my eyes.
Stop that. You're making me hungry.
Why do you believe that he is going to be a member of the Thomas/Scalia block? Could you explain what reasons?
I'm cautiously optimistic about his nomination--but I see her point about this being another Clements, in light of his backing off the Roe brief. I haven't seen anything that he's penned with his personal opinion on it besides the environmental takings articles he did in law school. And I want more than a vote against Kelo.
I have no idea what DU is, nor do I know what you mean by POTUS.
is this what got you so upset?
Wouldn't it be great if Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh all said that this nominee is wrong, just to defuse the liberal press and dems? Actually they are not that hard to confuse, they live in a state of confusion and fantasy anyway.
or maybe it was this?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956
Yet those who know Roberts say he, unlike Souter, is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action. Indicators of his true stripes cited by friends include: clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson. "He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it. In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.
Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."
which was it? I'm curious.
That's right. We're all unique. Just like everybody else.
Amen, prayers can work wonders in cases like this.
I owe you an apology. I reviewed my post to you and it was not inteded to be smug or harsh but that is the way I read it also.
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.