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.

Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)

You appear to be mentally mispunctuating. The standard for searching the trunk was looking for evidence of a crime (probable cause). The standard for constitutionality is not saying that he is looking for evidence of a crime. The ruling is that he did indeed have probable cause whether he said so aloud or not.

Chief Justice the head of the Judiciary Branch of our government.

The Chief Justice is the chair of the Judicial Conference and the Federal Judicial Center and oversees the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts.

The Chief Justice has a position on the board of the National Gallery of Art, is the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institution, and the Hirshorn Museum.

The Chief Justice also presides over impeachment trials of the President. Not exactly a figure head has a lot of other duties.

Ann is just trying to create some controversy and more opportunities for TV appearances and columns.

Fact is Roberts is very well known in some high circles where Ann isn't a member. He worked in the Justice Department and White House and clerked for Rehnquist who wanted him appointed. Hugh Hewitt has known him personally since college and says he's a conservative in the Rehnquist mold.

I'd have to know a little more about the case before I can make a really solid judgment

Here's a little more about the case:

USA vs. Brown, Monte (PDF)

I would disagree with what you seem to be implying (that the legitimacy of a search is determined by whether evidence of a crime is actually found,) since by that standard, there is hardly a need to have a Fourth Amendment. But I may be reading too much into your comments.

This case, like most 4th Amendment cases, is not quite "cut and dried," and there may be room for disagreement, but I don't see anything particularly alarming about it (and I have become more of a 4th Amendment purist in recent years...)

You made some excellent points in your post.
__________________________________________________________

Thanks, as I have read through this thread, and I am about half way done now, I have seen many of my points and many other good points made.

I don't think her intent was to argue AGAINST Roberts. Anyone who takes that from this article is buying the line that questioning Bush's nomination of Roberts is attacking Roberts. I got from this article that she wanted to understand why Roberts was the nominee instead of a clearcut conservative.

I think that's a legit question. Especially since the GOP has nominated so many Kennedy-Souter-O'Connor-Warren types before.

I'll bump to that.

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.

Our despisings are congruent. Luttig, IMO, is by far the best candidate available but has been passed over on the first opportunity and undoubtedly is a now a long shot for ever being nominated.

Both of your women are excellent candidates. I would think Brown would be the hardest for Dems to attack, but who knows with those loons.

Thanks, so it was a case of admissibility of evidence. My view isn't that "the legitimacy of a search is determined by whether evidence of a crime is actually found," but that the legitimacy of a conviction against someone isn't determined by whether the evidence against him was obtained legally, provided that the evidence itself is valid. The 4th amendment was designed to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

I agree with your clarification, but I would add that police officers who violate 4th Amendment protections (even of the guilty) should face more than a slap on the wrist, otherwise the amendment offers no protection in practice.

was also wrong in her predictions to her friends...

That could well be it and she was caught off balance like everyone else. I imagine ms Coulter, more than most, doesn't like being wrong. She prefers her fans to believe she is perfect. Why not? :o)

As I see it, they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else, unless they get a warrant (subject to the restrictions on warrants outlined in the 4th). That doesn't mean that they automatically get punished in the absence of a warrant, but that they're subject to the same legal process that any citizen would be who did the same thing. If it crosses the line into criminality, then county prosecutors should be able to go after state cops, and state prosecutors should be able to go after local cops. If necessary, accomodations should be made for qualified private attorneys to prosecute them.

As I see it, they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else

It's not possible for a private citizen to commit the same offense, though, unless you mean that illegal searches should be treated the same as burglaries? Again, i agree with your general point, as I understand it, that currently it is only the general public that is punished for illegal searches, when evidence of a crime cannot be used in court and a criminal walks free. I can't think of an analogous offense by a private citizen, and I don't know of any legal penalties currently on the books for cops.

But I guess we're wandering a bit off-topic for the thread at this point...

It's not possible for a private citizen to commit the same offense, though, unless you mean that illegal searches should be treated the same as burglaries?

If the illegal search is like a burglary. But if I happen to poke through the trunk of someone's car I doubt if I'd go to jail for it or anything. On the other hand, if I do have probable cause to believe that some illegal activity is going on inside a house, and there isn't time to call the police, a jury would most likely consider my actions reasonable under the circumstances if I were to enter.

So basically whatever the officer wants to do when it comes to searching your car is ok and permissable, even if it's not Constitutional. This is an emotional, reactionary decision. He is saying, "I don't like drugs, so let's forget about the Constitution in the case of drugs."

The case had nothing to do with drugs. The vehicle was searched after the driver was arrested for driving without a license. Some fake IDs and stolen credit cards were found inside the passenger compartment, leading the officer to think that there might have been fraudulently purchased items in the trunk. The trunk was then searched, and various purchases were inside plus a handgun. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He won a motion to suppress and the government appealed. LINK

If the illegal search is like a burglary. But if I happen to poke through the trunk of someone's car I doubt if I'd go to jail for it or anything.

All illegal searches are burglaries if performed by private citizens, because we never have the the right to perform a legal search - and whether you went to jail would depend on what you took, prior record, etc. I don't think I'd like to see cops prosecuted by that standard, because it really isn't the same crime. I was thinking of something more along the lines of suspension without pay, busted in rank, etc., depending on the severity. Right now, in general, there is no penalty at all.

Anyway, good chatting with you. It sounds like we mostly agree - the devil is in the details, as always...

...doesn't she look a little like Leslie Nielsen (younger years) in drag?

Um, no.

In addition, by doing this they are conceding that the 'Rat definition of "mainstream" is the correct one. They're basically saying, "Hey look, our nominee isn't out of the mainstream....he's never once criticized Roe or supported voluntary prayer or denounced the Massachusetts ruling on gay marriage as a matter of principle."
_________________________________________________________

Exactly and I take this to be a big part of Ms. Coulters point. Now was the time to appoint an OPEN conservative and define the mainstream to include conservatives since we control all the elected branches of government.

I've long since stopped referring to myself as a classic liberal. Nobody knows what that is. And the word liberal immediately raises questions in the minds of small government conservatives (although I'm beginning to believe small government conservatives don't really exist)

Yes, the term liberal has been corrupted from its original 19th century meaning, but we cannot undue it so we have to find a new term to describe the advocates of limited government.

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.