Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SOUTER IN ROBERTS CLOTHING, ANN COULTER
Ann Coulter.com ^ | 7-30-05 | Ann Coulter

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; aspintersrant; bushbotrage; coulter; johngroberts; johnroberts; scotus; souter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 901-903 next last

1 posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Babu

"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."

Damn, you have got to love her.

Now, Post some pictures.


2 posted on 07/20/2005 7:35:28 AM PDT by jbstrick (insert clever tagline here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

Maybe, but she's wrong on this one and hasn't done her homework.


3 posted on 07/20/2005 7:36:29 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

4 posted on 07/20/2005 7:36:35 AM PDT by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Babu
In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

5 posted on 07/20/2005 7:36:45 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (Honoring Saint Jude's assistance every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu

"Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever."

I agree with Ann 100%. I won't pop the corks over this nomination because I don't find anything to celebrate over. I am also distinctly uncomfortable with the roll over posture of RAT scum in the Senate. We needed a nomination that was loud and clear a constructionist - not a shiny new penny.


6 posted on 07/20/2005 7:37:53 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (NEW and IMPROVED: Now with 100% more Tyrannical Tendencies and Dictator Envy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu

I must disagree with Ann on this. This guy may have a limited record on the court, but has still been solid. He also has a long history of working on Conservative cases. Bush has privately interviewed the guy and trusts him. This guy is no Souter, and looks very much like a Scalia in adhereing to the Constitution. There are some question marks, but I am very confortable with the choice.


7 posted on 07/20/2005 7:37:57 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

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.


8 posted on 07/20/2005 7:38:23 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Ann, I love you but you're way off base on this one. Conservatives from Dr. Dobson to the great Marc Levin are praising this selection. Well, I guess even you can't be right 100% of the time.


9 posted on 07/20/2005 7:38:30 AM PDT by Russ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick
At cigar party Coulter with pal Miguel Estrada, right, and an ex, Democrat Christopher Putala, in Washington D.C.


10 posted on 07/20/2005 7:38:43 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (Honoring Saint Jude's assistance every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Sounds like Ann isn't happy.


11 posted on 07/20/2005 7:39:09 AM PDT by Josh in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick

12 posted on 07/20/2005 7:39:36 AM PDT by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Babu

>> Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"? <<

Ya mean like David Souter?! BWA-ha-ha-ha.


13 posted on 07/20/2005 7:39:41 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
I am also distinctly uncomfortable with the roll over posture of RAT scum in the Senate

I believe Harry "the body" Reid has already come out swinging against him. And what has it been, less than 24 hours?

14 posted on 07/20/2005 7:40:20 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Hell, I ws hoping for a Robert Bork nomination so you know I'm not a happy camper right now.


15 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:09 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu

The sad thing about daily commentators is that they have to try to come up with something provocative, unique, and fresh everyday.


16 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:28 AM PDT by DJtex (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
Maybe, but she's wrong on this one and hasn't done her homework.

Then you must be privy to information that the rest of us don't have.
Please enlighten us. (with specifics).

17 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:31 AM PDT by Willie Green (Some people march to a different drummer - and some people polka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Ann is wrong on Judge Roberts. I believe he is going to be a rock solid member of the Thomas/Scalia block. If he is, then we also have a great Chief justice in waiting. A rock solid originalist as Chief justice for the next 30 years would be great.


18 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:33 AM PDT by DuckFan4ever (Closing in on a permanent GOP majority. Don't blow it Tom Tancredo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

ping


19 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:50 AM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< OurFlorida.true.ws Impeach Judge Greer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

I happen to like white males, Ann. No disappointment here.
20 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:51 AM PDT by Millee (So you're a feminist......isn't that cute??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu

I, too, am worried about the blank slate.

His wife is telling --- active in prolife.

He also was known and liked, personally, to several of the NRO people. This is very reassuring.

An actual catholic, not a CINO, apparently --- also good for these purposes. (Adopted two kids; probably could have had kids via IVF.)


21 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:52 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu
I don't like the idea that this guy is another Souter, we worked too hard to get to this point. Ann is very smart, but she also likes to stir the pot - usually though, to infuriate liberals. I don't know what to make of this.
22 posted on 07/20/2005 7:41:56 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The story is true" - Dan Rather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Holy Crow! She DOES have an Adam's Apple!

(actually, I think it's just a tracheal ring. Damn girl, you gotta eat if we can see your tracheal rings!)


23 posted on 07/20/2005 7:42:33 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

Lawyers take all sorts of positions they may not agree with; means little.


24 posted on 07/20/2005 7:42:42 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Souter wasn't married to a pro-life advocate.


25 posted on 07/20/2005 7:43:14 AM PDT by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Josh in PA

Life and certainty dont mix


26 posted on 07/20/2005 7:43:25 AM PDT by woofie (I Predict...... Dr. Neil Clark Warren will someday kill his wife and stop being pleasant to others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Ann always has something interesting to say.


27 posted on 07/20/2005 7:43:25 AM PDT by fourscore (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu

I thought that there were some posts yesterday saying that Ann Coulter was behind him.


28 posted on 07/20/2005 7:43:40 AM PDT by scott7278 (Before I give you the benefit of my reply, I would like to know what we are talking about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Ditto to Ann - the media and hollywood did everything in their powers to get Kerry elected and failed - why do we continue to kiss the libs ass???? Abortion of live babies is not mainstream, racism in hiring and education is not mainstream, homosexual marriage is not mainstream - Bush should have picked someone who is on the record for strict constitutional interpretation and individual rights. I think conservatives probably got screwed again - time will tell.


29 posted on 07/20/2005 7:44:11 AM PDT by sasafras (Enforce the border, take away all the benefits and penalize employers who hire illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

I will wait and see before I condemn, but I've seen more than one 'R' nomination go over to the dark side. Funny how the RAT nominations to the SCOTUS seem to keep advancing their agenda...


30 posted on 07/20/2005 7:44:24 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (NEW and IMPROVED: Now with 100% more Tyrannical Tendencies and Dictator Envy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
An actual catholic, not a CINO, apparently --- also good for these purposes. (Adopted two kids; probably could have had kids via IVF.)

Amen! But remember, Catholics Need not Apply to the Supreme Court as per the DNC.

31 posted on 07/20/2005 7:44:35 AM PDT by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All
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.

Ann has a point and I trust both Ann and President Bush. I think however that Bush has a strategy behind all of this. Putting Roberts on the bench should please most conservative for now but we are still waiting to see what is in the cards for Rehnquist. If we push someone too conservative right now it will just be a big argument by both sides. Putting someone to the slight right on the bench can possibly allow us to push someone more conservative when Rehnquist gives up the bench. I don't think that will be long. We shall see. Bush knows what he is doing. I trust this move. I trust Roberts will serve the bench well.

32 posted on 07/20/2005 7:44:48 AM PDT by CollegeRepublicanNU (Spring Break Club Git'Mo!!!!! WOOOOHOOOO!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Babu
So....... I guess the beauteous Ann is under whelmed.
33 posted on 07/20/2005 7:45:02 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

Okay....did he or didn't he argue pro-bono against welfare time limits?


34 posted on 07/20/2005 7:45:03 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Russ

I love reading Ann's articles, but let's face it. Ann would complain the appointment of Jerry Falwell as being to liberal.


35 posted on 07/20/2005 7:45:22 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results is the definition of insanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Babu
Maybe she should eat something, and then comment.

36 posted on 07/20/2005 7:45:45 AM PDT by evets (You're welcome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth

Um... I seem to remember one such stealth nominee, named Clarence Thomas. Roberts' record is much less stealthy than Thomas'. What she is really insisting is that we can't tell Roberts' opinions from GHW Bush's. But he went out of his way to argue against Stare Decisis, exceeding even what his boss, Ken Starr, argued.


37 posted on 07/20/2005 7:45:50 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Babu

I have to agree with AC.

Roberts has only served two years on the bench.

There were better jurists with a lot more experience and a conservative track record on the bench than Roberts that W could have chosen.

All we can do is hope & pray for is that Roberts turns out to be a Scalia and not another Souter!


38 posted on 07/20/2005 7:45:58 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
Ann is very smart, but she also likes to stir the pot

Maybe Ann is just trying to make his confirmation easier by tricking the rats with this article.

39 posted on 07/20/2005 7:46:13 AM PDT by bankwalker (You get what you believe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Ann, sorry babe...like I told you last night when we were talking...I think you're wrong on this one.


40 posted on 07/20/2005 7:46:22 AM PDT by RockinRight (Democrats - Trying to make an a$$ out of America since 1933)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu
Well, she does make some very persuasive points. Especially this one: Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.

However, he does have plenty to say about judicial restraint. That gives me comfort.

41 posted on 07/20/2005 7:46:27 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu
Ann is great but it is time that will tell if the choice remains true to the original intent of the Constitution. We will have to wait at least ten years for the effects of Washington to sink in and whether or not he succumbs to inside the beltway politics.
42 posted on 07/20/2005 7:46:38 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (The alternative media is our Enigma machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Babu
Gee...maybe Ann was getting a little juiced up by all those Ann Coulter for USSC posts on FR and is pissed she didn't get the nod.

Roberts is a solid conservative pick. Maybe Ann needed to sell more books to the fringe whack-jobs...

43 posted on 07/20/2005 7:46:40 AM PDT by RayBob (Republicans...we eat our own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I think Ann is wrong, but I am glad that she's attacking the nomination. If anything, her attacks should help Roberts be confirmed.

Roberts is best friends with Michael Luttig, my first choice for the nomination and a solid conservative. That speaks volumes in my opinion.
44 posted on 07/20/2005 7:46:46 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DJtex

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! :)


45 posted on 07/20/2005 7:46:49 AM PDT by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- J.C. for OK Governor in '06; Allen/Watts in 2008: For D&G's -- WE TOLD YOU SO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
also distinctly uncomfortable with the roll over posture of RAT scum in the Senate.

I think that has more to do with the fact that the aren't quite sure how to attack him, without looking like bigger fools than they normally do. After all, they have already confirmed him twice for other bench positions, from what I understand; with at least one unanimous consent. Just wait, it's coming.

46 posted on 07/20/2005 7:47:05 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
""We continue to believe..."

That is exactly Ann's point. WE continue to beleive - the United States Of America executive. NOT "I".

47 posted on 07/20/2005 7:47:15 AM PDT by Fido969 ("The story is true" - Dan Rather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Babu

Well....here's some STRATEGERY....if ANN is AGAINST Roberts, then MAYBE the Democrats will be FOR HIM?


48 posted on 07/20/2005 7:47:22 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Our military......the world's HEROES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher

Me too. I would have died and gone to heaven if they had 'Borked' the RATs right up the tail pipe. Oh well, no chance of that...unless...Rehnquist still goes this summer...


49 posted on 07/20/2005 7:47:29 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (NEW and IMPROVED: Now with 100% more Tyrannical Tendencies and Dictator Envy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: evets
Not exactly the picture of health, is she. Needs more meat on those bones IMO.
50 posted on 07/20/2005 7:47:43 AM PDT by canalabamian (Durka durka...Muhammad FUBAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 901-903 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson