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.

I despise identity politics, but the chances of getting two white males confirmed back to back is not good. I'd rather see Jones or Brown.

Thanks for the information. I'd have to know a little more about the case before I can make a really solid judgment. If the search actually had turned up contraband, then the person to whom it pertained is just as guilty as he would be if the officer had jumped through all the necessary legal hoops for conducting the search. It doesn't sit well with me at all that proven criminals can reap some kind of windfall just because the officers screwed up.

But if, on the other hand, the search had turned up nothing, and the officer was being sued for an illegal search, then Roberts' ruling was totally inappropriate, and should be grounds for an immediate rejection by the Senate.

To me, the guilt or innocence of the suspect has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the search. I mean, is it ok to put video cameras in your house to watch your every move with no warrant if it turns out that you happen to commit a crime?

Yes, my speculation was that, since he picked a man to replace Roberts, he will either nominate a woman to replace Scalia (should he move to Chief), or just appoint a woman as Chief Justice.

To me, the guilt or innocence of the suspect has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the search.

But at the same time, the constitutionality of the search has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. If you're guilty, you're guilty, regardless of whatever transgressions the authorities might have committed. Sure, punish them for it if they cross the line, but don't turn a criminal loose because of it.

His "settled law" comment just smells.

Agreed. We don't need any more justices who equate Court decisions with legislation when Congress, not the Courts, have "all legislative powers" in the federal government (USC A1S1).

The Constitution is not designed to protect us from criminals. It is designed to protect us from tyranny. Better that a few criminals escape justice than for all of us to live under the tyranny of a criminal government. So many have lost sight of that.

But letting criminals get a benefit from the authorities' indiscretion does little to protect innocent people from abuses of power. The consequences of illegal searches and seizures should fall directly on those who commit them. There's no need to punish society by releasing criminals in retaliation for such actions.

One thing about someone who has lived in the DC area for a number of years and is still conservative, they have shown the ability to be a conservative in the culture of DC. As Justice O'Connor whining about Roberts not being a woman today reminds us, that is not easy for many conservative newcomers to the inside the beltway culture

You made some excellent points in your post.

His "settled law" comment just smells.
Agreed. We don't need any more justices who equate Court decisions with legislation when Congress

It would seem disturbing, but I believed Roberts prefixed that answer with as an appellate court judge. In that position he has no authority to ignore Supreme Court descions, so it is technically the correct answer. If he answered otherwised, he would have been nuked by the Senate Democrats.

I heard about how Coulter appears to hate this appointment, and thinks Roberts ill-suited. Now I've read the article and it seems clear to me is that she said "I don't know" at length and with vigor.

Not a problem. We should know more about Roberts, but this is hardly an indictment of him.

834 posted on 07/21/2005 1:58:55 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)

F. Lee Levin has given his stamp of approval and that is better than Coulter's non-endorsement here. Sorry Ann, I believe you be proven wrong.

Wrong? How can she be proven wrong? Basically all she says - admittedly, at length - is that she doesn't know. I think we can give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she actually doesn't feel she knows enough about Roberts to personally endorse him. And...?

835 posted on 07/21/2005 2:01:33 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)

836 posted on 07/21/2005 2:03:35 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)

You are correct. IMHO given the choice of Coulter who looks for facetime or Levin -- I will take the opinions of Levin every time. He is much more grounded and not as flippant but then he doesn't have long blonde hair either! :)

Are they really in opposition? All Coulter really says here is "I don't know." This is hardly a smashing denouncement of Roberts.

837 posted on 07/21/2005 2:07:37 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)

No, he'll appoint someone (Rogers-Brown or Hollans Jones?) from outside the Court for CJ, or Associate Justice to replace Scalia or Thomas if the get tapped for CJ.

I mean she's not arguing against Roberts personally. She doesn't say he's scum or some liberal that shouldn't ever be nominated.

yup.

839 posted on 07/21/2005 2:10:11 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)

We may not know if he lives in a log cabin, but you can bet that Bush knows.

This is what we hired him to do. I don't always agree with Bush; but I know that he's done a better job in this selection that Kerry would have done.

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.