For conservatives, the question: Who is John Roberts?

Washington Examiner ^ | July 2, 2012 | Byron York

[robowombat]

York: For conservatives, the question: Who is John Roberts? July 2, 2012

Byron York Chief Political Correspondent The Washington Examiner

In the wake of Chief Justice John Roberts' stunning about-face in the Obamacare case, conservatives who follow judicial issues are asking themselves: Did we ever really know Roberts? Did we get him wrong?

Those nagging questions have led Republicans to think back to Roberts' rise through the Washington legal world from White House lawyer to the nation's highest court.

Roberts had solid Republican credentials. He served in both the Reagan White House counsel's office and, later, in the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush.

In January 1992 Bush nominated Roberts to a place -- Clarence Thomas' old seat -- on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Many observers thought one conservative would be replacing another.

Certainly the Democrats who controlled the Senate saw it that way. Spotting Roberts as a future Republican star, they resolved to kill the nomination. And with the 1992 election approaching, they saw no reason to confirm a final-year Bush appointee when they could instead stall and see if a Democrat won the White House. Once Bill Clinton was elected, Roberts' court hopes were dead.

But Roberts was just 37 years old. He could wait -- which he did, through eight years of the Clinton administration.

In May 2001, President George W. Bush renominated Roberts for the D.C. Circuit Court. Again, he faced determined Democratic opposition, and his nomination went nowhere.

By the time Republicans won control of the Senate, in November 2002, Roberts had waited a decade for a seat on the appeals court. In the ugly atmosphere of the war over judges, Roberts became the poster boy for Republican anger at the Democratic blockade of Bush judicial nominees.

In us-versus-them politics, Roberts became "our guy" for Republicans. Determining his credentials as a philosophical conservative became less important than simply winning the confirmation fight for the GOP team.

In addition, Republican senators loved Roberts as a nominee because he was easy to defend. He didn't have any past scandals, and, since he had never been a judge, didn't have any quirky rulings to explain.

As a matter of fact, besides his glittering academic credentials and impressive resume, there wasn't a lot to say about Roberts. "He wasn't one of those who wrote op-eds and law review articles, and he didn't give speeches on issues," says one former Senate Republican aide involved in Roberts' appeals court confirmation. "He flew under the radar," says another former GOP aide who was also involved.

Still, with connections to Reagan, both Bushes and lots of Republicans, there seemed little reason to doubt Roberts' conservative bona fides. With Republicans in control of the Senate, he was confirmed to the circuit court in May 2003.

Yet two years later, when Bush nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court, little things -- or maybe not so little things -- popped up to make conservatives uneasy.

In the confirmation process, it emerged that Roberts, as a private attorney, had done pro bono work for Lambda Legal, the gay advocacy group that was fighting what became a key homosexual rights case, Romer v. Evans.

Roberts also troubled some conservatives by the positions he argued on behalf of plaintiffs in the giant antitrust case against Microsoft.

And while it was at first reported that Roberts had been a member of the Federalist Society -- standard procedure for conservative lawyers -- it turned out he had never, in fact, joined the group.

Roberts and his supporters -- among them Steve Schmidt, the operative chosen by the Bush White House to shepherd Roberts' nomination through the Senate before later going on to run John McCain's presidential campaign -- argued that Roberts was simply working as a lawyer, representing his clients as best he could, and his work didn't say anything about his judicial philosophy.

But that judicial philosophy wasn't really clear. "His ideological opinions he certainly kept to himself," says one of those former Senate aides. "He was a blank slate because he had represented so many different sides," says the other.

The public debate over Roberts echoed those private doubts. As Roberts sought confirmation, conservative commentators as varied as Charles Krauthammer and Ann Coulter called him a "tabula rasa."

In the end, Roberts just didn't give Democrats much of a target. He was confirmed, 78-22, in September 2005. Among those 22 Democrats who voted against Roberts were then-Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Now Roberts has given Obama the biggest court victory of his presidency. But to uphold Obamacare, the chief justice had to execute logical twists and turns that left conservatives wondering what they really knew about him all along.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

[Sudetenland]

Republicans and Bush were so obsessed with finding a candidate with no track record to defend that they bought another pig in a poke--just like Souter.

The Republican Party "leadership" is a sad joke. They are the perennial Charlie Browns with libs playing Lucy with the football. They are afraid of their own shadows.

Rather than pick a principled conservative jurist with a long track record of conservative--originalist--rulings and then mounting a full court advertising campaign and PR blitz to force Democrats into voting on the basis of ability rather than political ideology, they'd rather roll the dice with someone about whom they know little and assume much.

This is the same thing they do with everything in the conservative agenda. Rather than Roosevelt's "Talk softly and carry a big stick," Republicans like Boehner and the rest practice talking loudly and carry a piece of linguini--like their spines.

It doesn't matter how many times they get shellacked by the press, they still believe they can curry favor with them and be liked. It's like the guy who, every time you see him, he punches you hard on the shoulder and after 10 years of that, being astonished when next you see him, that he hits you in the shoulder.

It's hopeless. Deer in the headlights. Babes in the woods--except rather than having the excuse of ignorance or inexperience, they are just living a life of complete delusion.

[LRS]

Who is John Roberts? Yet another fool who thinks the “pooch punt” is a brilliant play in the NFL. “He’s lining up for the field goal. Here is the snap. NO! It is a pooch punt! That will teach ‘em!”

[DesertRhino]

For death threats, yes,,, he could indeed have that press conference. But if his homo past was threatened to be revealed, he could have been influenced. Not only did he know that they owned him there,, but if he were forced to resign, he knows Obama would appoint another judge.

He was blackmailed.

[DesertRhino]

For death threats, yes,,, he could indeed have that press conference. But if his homo past was threatened to be revealed, he could have been influenced. Not only did he know that they owned him there,, but if he were forced to resign, he knows Obama would appoint another judge.

He was blackmailed.

[Will88]

Each Bush nominated a candidate many believed to be a stealth candidate at the time of the nomination process, Souter for GHWB and Roberts for W.

There is no excuse for a Republican president to nominate a stealth candidate about which little is known. If Republican presidents intend to nominate conservatives, it is known who they are, especially the conservatives who’ve been on a federal court for several years.

And with the Bush stealth candidates, the case can be made that they were both stealth liberals, or at least stealth moderates. The case can be made that the Bushes got the sort of justices they wanted in Souter and Roberts.

I don’t think there many people still around who’d try to make the case that either Bush was a conservative.

[HerrBlucher]

I’ll bet it was pro bono.

[ModelBreaker]

He’s just another guy who could have been great if he’d stuck to principle. But failed.

[little jeremiah]

So Steve Schmidt was pushing for Roberts.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Steve+Schmidt+gay&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

I don’t know (or remember if I ever did know) whether Schmidt is a perv himself or just pro-perve. I’m starting to suspect Roberts is a perv.

[robowombat]

The blackmail aspect has nothing to do with threats of the usual Cook County knee breaker variety. The blackmail is that Roberts is a true closeted queer of the deepest lavender and is very fond of young boys. In the cesspool of DC this is nothing unusual as the queer sex, kiddie porn and sex and drugs community is quite large and as long as one plays by the unpublished but well known rules ones secrets will be kept. If one doesn't play according to the rules, which include when your markers are called in you do as told, then the Washington Post will courageously report on your secret interests. The last player this was done to big time was John Murtha who just wanted to use his office to make a lot of money. He did but found out he also had to become the famous ‘anti-war Marine patriot’. He really didn't like the publicity at first until he found out lots of dumb leftist dames wanted to jump his meaty bones.

[NTHockey]

>>Roberts is not a “Machiavellian genius.” Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image. In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet. And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes. —Ann Barnhardt<<

The new Ann, hope she doesn’t turn on us like the other Ann.

[Ken H]

Why does any of this matter NOW? There are no elections for this position. He will be on the court until he retires or dies so why bother discussing him and his supposed motivations, allegiances and political bent?

Good grief, man. He sold out his country and gave us Obamacare.

Have you forgotten about the time-honored tradition of shame and scorn for scoundrels? Roberts needs to be seen by history for the villain he is.

[winner3000]

George Bush Senior gave us Souter. George W Bush apparently gave us another one. Unless a judge has a strong Constitutionalist background, people should assume they are liberal.

[winner3000]

George Bush Senior gave us Souter. George W Bush apparently gave us another one. Unless a judge has a strong Constitutionalist background, people should assume they are liberal.

[winner3000]

George Bush Senior gave us Souter. George W Bush apparently gave us another one. Unless a judge has a strong Constitutionalist background, people should assume they are liberal.

[uncbob]

Decision was bad enough but then he had to joke about going to an impregnable fortress

That was a very telling comment about his attitude

[cp124]

Back stabbing weasel comes to mind.
I believe Obama knew he was going to loose and gave Roberts the idea. That is why it happened at the last minute and Obama knew about ahead of time. We now have one branch of government and the republic has died.

[Random_User_250]

So basically, either we get Obama who will appoint more radicals like Kagan, or we get Romney who will appoint more liberals like Roberts who will vote with the radicals on most of the important issues anyway...

At least we won Citizens United. So there’s that.

[Surfscoter]

You can make a credible argument that the Bush family has done great damage to the Republican brand and run off the Reagan Democrats with: “read my lips; no new taxes;” David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, “compassionate conservatives” adding a new drug entitlement, and abandoning the political battlefield by GWB to allow the Dems to retake the House & Senate, then failing to veto the reckless spending.

[robowombat]

Worse. If this rumor contains a significant degree of truth it lifts a corner on just how foully corrupt the highest circles of the US Government are. What we have is corruption of the soul similar to Paris in 1788 or St Peters burg in 1916. This true evil of an incalculable nature and means we and our families are in the power of truly evil human beings who are completely unconstrained by any morality. The question is how to save our lives and liberties. People such as this will inevitably commit gross errors that will actually compromise the physical existence of the United States.

[broken_arrow1]

A TRAITOR!