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.

Nearly 800 posts, and Ms. Coulter's opposition almost never stops going after the woman as a chicken-legged drunkard who never loved Bush to begin with.

I opposed certain aspects of Coulter's article. I never called her chicken-legged or drunkard. Many other posters also opposed aspects of her article and never resorted to these personal attacks.

Yet you quantify Coulter's opposition as posters who "almost never stops going after the woman as a chicken-legged drunkard".

The initial posters on this thread who mention Culter's looks were supporters of her article. They are the ones who brought up the subject of Coulter's physical appearence. If it's fair game to say that her article is correct, that she looks great and that here is a picture of her, then why isn't also fair game by people who don't think her article is correct and who think that she's too skinny to say so? Why don't you criticize the posters who thought "skinny-good-looks" was germain to this debate and who thought posting pictures of Coulters "slender-beauty" was germaine to this debate.

BTW, I just looked at the first 50 posts on this thread. One poster said she was too skinny and no posters said that she was a drunkard. Yet in those same 50 posts we had about a handful of pro-article people who initiated the physical attribute debate by posting pictures of her. Yet you say the following;

You:

You are what you complain about.

Reasoned debate to you means that not ALL of you insult her that way, so it's perfectly okay to do so

I never said that. I never excused the insults.

You:

Me: I opposed certain aspects of Coulter's article. I never called her chicken-legged or drunkard. Many other posters also opposed aspects of her article and never resorted to these personal attacks.

You said that Coulter's opposition almost never stops going after the woman personally. Meanwhile out of the first 50 or so posts, I only counted one who criticized her weight and none who called her a drunkard.

That's reasoned debate to you. That's what you consider a reasoned response. The smear of all in opposition because one in the opposition commented on her weight.

As I said before you do what you complain about. You should really correct the record.

As far as Coulter's weight goes, if some posters think that it's germain to the argument to comment on Coulter's weight and how she looks good, then it's not surprising that others would comment that they think she's too skinny. How shocking!

I could see it now. Some posters would comment on Hillary's lovely leg's and you would be so shocked to see other posters saying that they are not.

Your erroneous comment still remains, yet to be corrected;

You:

You're history is dubious. Feminism dates to the nineteenth century. For the most part, early feminists (including Susan B. Anthony) were anti-abortion, anti-liquor, Protestant, and quite puritanical on moral issues.

The so-called "women’s movement" had its roots in the late 18th century and picked up speed in the 1840s, particularly in New England.

By the 1910s, it had become organized and more or less unified around a few key issues, bringing together women of diverse backgrounds and beliefs. These groups fought mainly for prohibition and the 19th-amendment (women’s suffrage), although fringe elements (like those headed by Margaret Sanger) advocated "free love," forced sterilization of the poor and "unfit" and the elimination of marriage and the traditional family.

Later these more extremist groups would come to dominate feminism in the 1960s during the sexual revolution. Today’s "Third-Wave" feminists (equity feminists rather than gender feminists) have worked hard to distance themselves from the radical bra-burners of that time and have disavowed much of their foremothers’ philosophy. But there is still a shared foundation between the radical feminists and their "kinder, gentler" sisters of the 21st century.

Today we have essentially three different strands of feministic thought.

First there are the "equity feminists" who do believe there are inherent differences between the sexes but seek to promote specific reforms to address what they perceive as unequal treatment in society ("equal pay for equal work," etc.). Equity feminists relate most closely to the "first-wave" feminists of the 1840s-1920s who fought for woman’s suffrage, prohibition, and the end of the "living wage" law for men (in order to get more women into the workforce for more pay). Feminists in this camp prefer to distance themselves from the sexual revolutionaries of the 1960s and tend to be more conservative in their application of feminism to society.

Next there are the "gender feminists" who wish to remove any lines of distinction between men and women in all areas of life. As Thomas Gramstad writes, "There are no virtues or psychological characteristics belonging exclusively to males, or to females." [2] Many of the adherents of gender feminism believe that any psychological or social differences between men and women are rooted in the oppression of a patriarchal structure that seeks to make women lesser persons than men. They seek to end patriarchy and maintain complete egalitarianism between the sexes. One such feminist goes so far as to say, "True equality of the sexes will come when God is universally perceived as androgynous. Then, and only then, will there be true equality of the sexes." [3] She admits this view is "dangerously blasphemous" and places her beyond the pale of many mainstream feminists, but she proposes a new definition of "feminist" all the same, to wit: "A person who supports the theory that God the Mother is equal to God the Father." [4] While most gender feminists do not go to this theological extreme, you do find many within this camp who promote the idea of the "goddess within," advocate gender-neutral translations of the Bible, etc. Gender feminists tend to align themselves with the so-called "second-wave" feminists of the 1960s who are perceived as more "radical" and activist in their pursuits.

Finally, you have the "third-wave" feminists of today (mainly Generation Xers and younger). They have toned down the more radical tenets of the 1960s women’s movement, but they are generally not as conservative as the equity feminists and tend to advocate liberal causes such as abortion on demand. One third-wave feminist is Amy Richards of feminist.com, who writes, There are many definitions of what a feminist is--the simplest and probably the best is what is listed in most dictionaries--"a person who believes in the full equality of women and men." This means anyone--male or female--who supports this idea can be a feminist. As for [the] goal of feminism, [it] is equality--and that means both that women do what men have done (be fire fighters and corporate executives) and that men do what women have done (be stay-at-home fathers and secretaries). [5]

There are, of course, feminists of all stripes among these philosophical camps. To further complicate matters, feminists within each camp often differ drastically over the application and practice of their philosophy. The "fringe" elements on both sides have alienated many women, who seek to distance themselves from the more radical elements of feminism. Steve Roby writes about the frustrating difficulty of trying to find a united feminist "voice":

Maybe it's time for some organization to claim feminism as its own intellectual property. Patent it, trademark it, license it, but most importantly, clearly define what feminism actually is today. Then we could just look for a feminist seal of approval on any new book about feminism. Unfortunately, there's no licensing body, no Institute of Professional Feminists. There's no one true definition of feminism. Does it focus on individual or collective rights? Does it seek a common ground or does it foster division? Does it oppose pornography or does it oppose censorship? Depends who you ask. Put Andrea Dworkin, Nadine Strossen, Susan Faludi, and Christina Hoff Sommers in one room, and wait for a feminist consensus to develop. You may have to wait until two or three of them have died of old age before reaching that consensus. [6] http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_6.shtml

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.